Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5721378/

Topic: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: LipeGIG
Posted 2013-03-23 07:34:14 and read 42968 times.

As the previous one become too big, we are opening a new thread for discussions

Link to thread 13 : FAA Grounds B787: Part 13 (by 777ER Mar 9 2013 in Civil Aviation)

As the majority of the replys in the last thread were off tech/ops nature, please keep this thread for any news/updates on the progress for getting the Dreamliner back flying again. If you wish to discuss the battery issues/fire/APU etc then discuss them in B787 Grounding: Tech/ops Thread Part 2 which can be found here B787 Grounding: Tech/ops Thread Part 2 (by 777ER Mar 9 2013 in Tech Ops)


WARNING: Due to thread 9 going off topic quickly and turning into a 'battle ground', the moderators will be watching this thread frequently and ANY offending/rule breaking posts will be removed. Please respect each others right to have their opinion



Enjoy the website

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: bellancacf
Posted 2013-03-23 09:50:29 and read 42756 times.

Did any test flights take place?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-03-23 11:27:40 and read 42592 times.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 1):
Did any test flights take place?

Not yet.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-23 14:28:00 and read 42372 times.

SP-LRC was deiced yesterday but did not fly.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/microvolt/8581796192/in/photostream

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: blrsea
Posted 2013-03-23 16:55:59 and read 42191 times.

Experts weigh in on Boeing's solution. Looks like external experts are satisfied with Boeing's proposed solution. Also reports on the tests conducted so far.

787 battery fix gets thumbs up from aviation experts

Quote:

...
Independent experts view the fail-safe part of Boeing’s proposed 787 Dreamliner fix — a heavy stainless steel box that will contain any heat, flames or flammable vapors from the lithium ion battery — as a solid solution.
...
But to John Goglia, a former member of the National Transportation Safety Board and now an outspoken critic of the FAA and Boeing, it’s this box that makes Boeing’s solution acceptable.

“No matter what happens to the battery now, it won’t be a problem because it’s contained,” Goglia said. “It’ll probably satisfy the FAA to get the airplane back in the sky.”
...
...
Other tests are more severe, including one lab test that involves igniting propane inside the containment box, causing an explosion that increases the pressure to three times what could be expected in the worst-case scenario.

Boeing has already done a successful run-through of this test. A video shows the 1/8th-inch-thick steel walls of the box bulge out in slow motion. But they hold fast and regain their shape.
...
...
“It’s easy to calculate the amount of energy in the battery and it’s easy to calculate the amount of energy the box can absorb,” said Janicki. “Mathematically, to know whether it will work is a fairly precise science.”

An aviation-safety engineer, who asked for anonymity because he spoke without the approval of his employer (not Boeing), agreed that the proposed battery fix “looks pretty good.”

Though he’s critical of how the FAA appears to have rubber-stamped Boeing’s original battery design, he said the revised battery system should be approved and certified to fly.
...
..
He said the fix, which adds 150 pounds to the weight of the airplane — more than doubling the weight of the two main batteries involved — completely negates the weight savings that had been expected from using lithium ion instead of nickel cadmium batteries.
...
...

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: JAAlbert
Posted 2013-03-23 18:35:02 and read 41680 times.

Quoting blrsea (Reply 4):
Independent experts view the fail-safe part of Boeing’s proposed 787 Dreamliner fix — a heavy stainless steel box that will contain any heat, flames or flammable vapors from the lithium ion battery — as a solid solution.

So the box will contain any failure - but it doesn't sound like this fix gets to the issue as to why the batteries overheated in the first place, does it? The original batteries from what I read were failing at a high rate -- what is or has been done to correct that problem? I'm sure the airlines don't want to be replacing these batteries every few months.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-03-23 18:48:07 and read 41590 times.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
The original batteries from what I read were failing at a high rate --

depends on what you call failing.. As I recall of those removed (and called failures by some) 90% were because that had been drawn down to a point where they were locked out for recharging on the plane. the causes were predominately ramps/cleaning crews using battery power instead of ground power.. because a seriously drawn down battery is more unstable than one discharged in normal use, it must be removed to recharge and reset the limiters. There was a breakdown of the other 10% however I don't recall what they were

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-03-23 18:58:43 and read 41523 times.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
but it doesn't sound like this fix gets to the issue as to why the batteries overheated in the first place, does it? The original batteries from what I read were failing at a high rate -- what is or has been done to correct that problem?

As I understand it, JAAlbert, the overheating (just the two incidents so far) is thought to have been caused by 'spreading' short-circuits due to the cells being too close together and uncontained. Boeing and Yuasa have therefore moved the cells further apart, and also added insulation etc. between them.

As far as I know, all previous failures (and I agree that there were a lot of them) occurred on the ground; and the problem was that some batteries could not be recharged 'in situ' and therefore had to be replaced; not a matter of fires etc.. The proposal there appears to be to adjust the appropriate recharging rates and also the levels to which the batteries discharge and recharge; I don't know enough physics fully to understand that, but get the impression that it's mainly a matter of 'calming everything down.' All wiring arrangements etc. have also been reviewed.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-23 19:47:18 and read 41245 times.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
So the box will contain any failure - but it doesn't sound like this fix gets to the issue as to why the batteries overheated in the first place, does it?

No, because why they overheated in the first place isn't known. Rather than keep the fleet grounded until a final cause is determined, this new box will allow any failure to be tolerated in the interim. Once a cause is found, additional remediation will be taken to prevent or reduce the chances of it happening again.



Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
The original batteries from what I read were failing at a high rate -- what is or has been done to correct that problem?

The maximum discharge level is being raised to a level that allows the batteries to still be charged aboard the plane if that level is reached.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-03-23 21:29:50 and read 40810 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Once a cause is found, additional remediation will be taken to prevent or reduce the chances of it happening again.

To expand, Boeing has also reduced the chance of a battery fire by:
1. Reducing how much the battery may be drained and still recharged on aircraft
2. Reducing how much the battery may be charged (in effect, really cutting back on the number of watt hours that battery may put out)
3. Reducing the battery charge harshness. (I assume by slowing the charge and putting a ramp up or other means into the battery charging profile.)

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
The maximum discharge level

One of three steps.   I know you knew, but I felt your post needed to be expanded upon. Each of the above reduces the chance of a battery fire. The three in combination are belts, suspenders, and an elastic waist in combo.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-03-24 01:05:25 and read 40064 times.

I hope for the airlines that this will be OK for FAA but not as a final solution. First treat the illness, then develop a remedy, that should be a logical path.

However many here think that this is the final solution, I don´t think even B is satisfied by flying with unknown causes in its batteries. However to redo chemistry and get that tested, accepted and certified would take too long for the airlines to accept. Just do this interim and aim to remake over time and that update should be free of charge to any airline flying the 787. That way it will keep flying and finally have a better cell chemistry in the end.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-03-24 02:54:24 and read 39711 times.

Pretty informative (and up-to-date) press article here:-

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/AW_03_25_2013_p35-561498.xml&p=1

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: francoflier
Posted 2013-03-24 03:01:29 and read 39673 times.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
I'm sure the airlines don't want to be replacing these batteries every few months.

Especially now that it has become a lot more complicated to do a battery swap...

Is there any word on whether this will affect ETOPS capability yet?

The safety issue is pretty much taken care of, but the battery reliability issue is still an unknown.
If I understood correctly, these batteries are critical ETOPS items.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-03-24 03:13:27 and read 39605 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 11):
Pretty informative (and up-to-date) press article here:-

Quote:
New details of the redesigned battery system also reveal why Boeing has remained confident of FAA approval for the fix. The battery enclosure, which is designed to prevent a fire erupting rather than simply containing it, is made of 0.125-in.-thick stainless steel. A 1-in.-dia. titanium vent pipe connects the back of the enclosure to the outer skin of the aircraft where new exit holes—one for each battery—will be cut through the composite skin. The vent pipe is designed to evacuate vaporized electrolytes from the battery should any, or all, of the eight cells in the unit fail. In the event of a cell failure, a small pressure port in the rear of the enclosure is designed to rupture under pressure from the building vapor. The vapor will then exit the aircraft via the vent pipe.

Interesting stuff. Earlier posts here suggested that new holes in the fuselage weren't the best option.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: scbriml
Posted 2013-03-24 03:53:57 and read 39381 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 10):
However many here think that this is the final solution

Maybe because Boeing has indicated as much?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 2175301
Posted 2013-03-24 04:16:43 and read 39230 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 14):
Quoting sweair (Reply 10):
However many here think that this is the final solution

Maybe because Boeing has indicated as much?

Actually, I believe that Boeing will change to Titanium boxes in the future instead of 1/8" SS before they change the battery chemistry.

That would probably allow a wight reduction in the box by at least 1/2.

For now (and as an immediate fix), SS was readily available in sufficient quantities and is very easily fabricated. Titanium needs to have better scheduling of material availability (especially certain alloys) and can have fabrication challenges that take some time to perfect the best way.

Note that Boeing used Titanium tubing for the vent pipe which I believes provides a clue to how important weight is. Such tubing in several alloys is readily available. So is SS tubing - which would work as well (but weighs more).

Have a great day,

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-03-24 07:40:46 and read 38204 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 11):
Pretty informative (and up-to-date) press article here:-

Not so up to date. The full details were actually made public by Boeing 10 days ago.

http://787updates.newairplane.com/Bo...-solution-presentation-English.pdf

[Edited 2013-03-24 07:44:23]

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-24 08:38:29 and read 38018 times.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 12):
Is there any word on whether this will affect ETOPS capability yet?

ETOPS-180 should be unaffected by these issues since you can depart with an inoperative APU battery and/or an inoperative APU. So regardless of the failure rate of the APU batteries, the 787 should still meet the requirements for ETOPS-180 operation.

The 787 has yet to be certified for ETOPS-240 or ETOPS-330. In order to attain such certification, either the failure rate of the APU battery will have to be at or below whatever the requirements is or Boeing will have to modify the APU system design so that the APU can be started and operated without the APU battery.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-03-24 08:46:10 and read 37978 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
Boeing will have to modify the APU system design so that the APU can be started and operated without the APU battery.

Or perhaps just operated - I haven't looked at ETOPS requirements for a while, but I believe there are some MEL configurations that require continuous APU operation (i.e. started on the ground).

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-03-24 08:51:58 and read 37950 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 16):
The full details were actually made public by Boeing 10 days ago.

Drilling additional holes in the fuselage is a new detail not disclosed in the Boeing presentation (at least not blatantly apparent).

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: blrsea
Posted 2013-03-24 08:55:07 and read 37934 times.

How different is it in drilling holes in CFRP fuselage compared to aluminium ones? Will it have any effect on the CFRP strength?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: francoflier
Posted 2013-03-24 08:55:56 and read 37931 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):

Thanks!

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-24 09:03:09 and read 37894 times.

Quoting blrsea (Reply 20):
How different is it in drilling holes in CFRP fuselage compared to aluminium ones? Will it have any effect on the CFRP strength?

There are already plenty of holes and ducts in the structure, so that should not be an issue.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-03-24 09:05:15 and read 37890 times.

Quoting blrsea (Reply 20):
How different is it in drilling holes in CFRP fuselage compared to aluminium ones?

B787 Grounding: Tech/ops Thread Part 2 (by 777ER Mar 9 2013 in Tech Ops)

Quote:
For a hole in the 787, even if you use the sharpest cutting tool, you will always expect cracks and micro delamination at the cut edges. Sealing will prevent moisture from getting into the crack (and freeze causing additional delamination). However, most likely they will put some sort of bolted and/or bonded doubler around the cutout so any crack growth would be arrested by the bolt clamp-up.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-03-24 09:06:57 and read 37876 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 18):
Or perhaps just operated - I haven't looked at ETOPS requirements for a while, but I believe there are some MEL configurations that require continuous APU operation (i.e. started on the ground).

That is true, however, I believe it was stated in a previous thread (somewhere) that Mike Sinnett indicated loss of the APU battery would cause the APU to shut down, so that appearss not to be an option.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-03-24 09:29:33 and read 38322 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 19):

Drilling additional holes in the fuselage is a new detail not disclosed in the Boeing presentation (at least not blatantly apparent).

Slide 15: "dedicated vent line"

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 23):
For a hole in the 787, even if you use the sharpest cutting tool, you will always expect cracks and micro delamination at the cut edges. Sealing will prevent moisture from getting into the crack (and freeze causing additional delamination). However, most likely they will put some sort of bolted and/or bonded doubler around the cutout so any crack growth would be arrested by the bolt clamp-up.

The answer is in TechOps thread one (Tom) - titanium doublers.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-03-24 09:40:36 and read 38306 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 25):
Slide 15: "dedicated vent line"

Yes, I saw that, but to me, as a layman, it doesn't say whether that's a new hole or repurposing what already exists.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-03-24 11:17:55 and read 38619 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 27):

Presumably if you repurposed an existing vent, you'd need to cut a new vent for whatever was there before.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 24):
That is true, however, I believe it was stated in a previous thread (somewhere) that Mike Sinnett indicated loss of the APU battery would cause the APU to shut down, so that appearss not to be an option.

Perhaps I didn't word my response very clearly. Stitch suggested that the electrical system might eventually need to be modified for ETOPS 180+ so that the APU can be "started and operated" without the APU battery. I was suggesting that "operated" might be enough for some ETOPS requirements (i.e. those where the APU runs the whole time). That would require another source of power for the APU controller, which apparently runs off the APU battery bus.

However, I'm wondering if something Sinnett and/or the NTSB said got misinterpreted. It seems odd to me that there would be redundant ways of starting the APU other than the APU battery, but they're useless without the battery because it alone supplies the APU controller.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-03-24 20:43:19 and read 37867 times.

Looks like some 'hard news' about the flight test at last:-

"Boeing is on the verge of flight testing the modified 787 battery system changes on Line Number 86, an aircraft destined for LOT Polish Airlines. The aircraft is set to undergo a final pre-flight ground test in the afternoon (Pacific time), at Paine Field, Everett on 24th, and if all goes to plan could be cleared for a standard ‘B2’ profile, customer acceptance type flight test on March 25."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...1731f4-1598-4e70-89c5-c0edf1740593

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-03-24 21:31:54 and read 37749 times.

I'm sure Mr Norris has some good conections at Boeing but I doubt we'll see a customer acceptance flight on ZA272 Monday.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-25 01:28:11 and read 37461 times.

I read it as LN86 will fly a customer acceptance flight profile but that doesn't mean it's an acceptance flight.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-03-25 03:30:38 and read 37230 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 29):
I'm sure Mr Norris has some good conections at Boeing but I doubt we'll see a customer acceptance flight on ZA272 Monday.

I take the same position as the post below.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 30):
I read it as LN86 will fly a customer acceptance flight profile but that doesn't mean it's an acceptance flight.

Just in case, the line from the article is listed below.
"at Paine Field, Everett on 24th, and if all goes to plan could be cleared for a standard ‘B2’ profile, customer acceptance type flight test on March 25."

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-03-25 07:40:48 and read 36762 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 30):
I read it as LN86 will fly a customer acceptance flight profile but that doesn't mean it's an acceptance flight.

It's only a customer acceptance profile if the the customer is on board. Some follow the Boeing B-1 profile some don't, so which customer profile will they fly. And there is no such thing as a "standard 'B2' profile" -- a B-2 is just a cleanup flight for whatever needs fixing after the B-1, it can be 20 minutes long or an hour and 20 minutes long. If he'd said B1 instead of B2 and left the customer part out he would have had a lot more creddibility.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-03-25 08:08:21 and read 36724 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 27):
However, I'm wondering if something Sinnett and/or the NTSB said got misinterpreted.

What Sinnett said and the NTSB wrote was pretty darn clear, so "misstated," perhaps, but not "misinterpreted." It would have been nice if one the journalists at the Japanese news conference had asked him whether or not Boeing sees this situation as an issue that needs fixing instead of asking stuff like whether Boeing owes the Japanese people an apology, etc.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-25 08:36:50 and read 36628 times.

ZA272 is starting its engines.

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BGNobBpCIAAyNyj.jpg:large

http://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/316211212348170241

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-03-25 10:58:46 and read 36302 times.

Here we go, flight plan filed for LOT ZA272.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE272

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-25 11:34:22 and read 36111 times.

Live stream here:
http://www.kirotv.com/s/news/live-event/

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-25 11:40:01 and read 36123 times.

More info:

- This will be the first of at least two test flights. This one for Boeing...basically a functional check. Then the one for the FAA.
- Boeing says the LOT 787 will perform a normal flight check profile, that includes electrical system checks.
- After this 787 flight is analysed, certification flight for battery modifications would come within a few days -Boeing.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-25 11:53:04 and read 36047 times.

On the move.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-25 12:02:48 and read 36016 times.

Rejected takeoff test completed.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-03-25 12:26:55 and read 35938 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 39):
Rejected takeoff test completed.



Actually the RTO (Rejected Take Off) is done at the end of the flight. The test they were doing was to confirm normal operation of the engines at full thrust -- the first time engines are run at full thrust on the airplane -- previous to this full thrust was only done in the test cell at the engine manufacturer. This test was aborted at about 60 or 70 knots -- short of the RTO activation speed. Looks like they are following the B-1 profile done previously on this airplane to the letter.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: litz
Posted 2013-03-25 12:40:36 and read 35896 times.

I think a lot of people are missing that we have two issues at hand :

1) the battery failed
2) the battery containment failed

The first is not necessarily bad; it happens and you replace it.

The second, however, grounded the airplane.

At this point they don't know why #1 happened, but the forensics on #2 were pretty clear.

The new box solves (imho, pretty darned conclusively) #2.

#1 is probably still up in the air; they have changes they suspect will fix it, but aren't sure.

Meanwhile the new box solves #2 and they can get back to flying airplanes.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-25 15:36:16 and read 35523 times.

"As part of its certification ground tests, Boeing will push a lithium-ion battery on 787 ZA005 to destruction"

http://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/316317161423503360

[Edited 2013-03-25 15:38:47]

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-03-25 21:18:30 and read 35084 times.

Quoting litz (Reply 41):
I think a lot of people are missing that we have two issues at hand :

thanks for the clarification that 3500 posts over 14 threads had failed to communicate.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: davidho1985
Posted 2013-03-25 21:23:08 and read 35057 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 42):
"As part of its certification ground tests, Boeing will push a lithium-ion battery on 787 ZA005 to destruction"http://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/316317161423503360

Keep on charging the batteries untill they are over-heat and then burn to test the new battery boxes???

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2013-03-26 06:23:23 and read 34644 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 27):
Presumably if you repurposed an existing vent, you'd need to cut a new vent for whatever was there before.

There is two problems with using an existing vent.

One as you mentioned, would require repurposing an exisiting vent. Typically exisiting vents are meant to drain fluid from the bilge or to dump air overboard. I believe these type of vents require special valves that would probably not be compatible with what they are trying to do with the battery vent.

The other problem is that the fluid vent are typically located at the centerline of the aircraft (lowest point in the fuselage. Don't know about the air vent but would assume the same). Who knows how far the battery are from the existing vents? Even if the vent are at the same aiplane station as the battery, the distance from the battery to the vent would probably be more than what you would want for routing a titanium tube. The farther you have to route the tube, the greater chance you have of disturbing existing system routing.

bt

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-27 13:46:48 and read 33963 times.

Quoting litz (Reply 41):
#1 is probably still up in the air; they have changes they suspect will fix it, but aren't sure.

Few things on this one:

1) As been discussed in one of the first grounding threads, it is very common to replace aircraft parts
2) ANA replaced about 100 to 150 batteries before the fire events, and nobody complained about it
3) It became only a problem when there was a fire, because fire = safety issue
4) So if Boeng can contain the fire then we are back at #2, so that should be enough

[Edited 2013-03-27 13:47:24]

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: bellancacf
Posted 2013-03-27 16:16:59 and read 33758 times.

@Karel #46: "ANA replaced 100 - 150 batteries ..."

That _sounds_ like an awful lot of batteries. Is it more than would be replaced on a 767 or 777 over the same time span?

What was going wrong with them? Being replaced when they showed the slightest degradation in capacity? Being swapped out and refurbished (assuming you can refurbish a battery ...)? Something worse: failure of a cell? Short?

I guess what I'm asking is: Is that a smoking gun or not?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-27 17:37:10 and read 33665 times.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 47):
What was going wrong with them?

Ground staff were running them down by using them longer than the book called for.



Quoting bellancacf (Reply 47):
I guess what I'm asking is: Is that a smoking gun or not?

Yes, in that it points out 787 ground crew either need better training or better supervision.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: bellancacf
Posted 2013-03-27 18:57:33 and read 33492 times.

@Stitch #48:

Did this maltreatment do something to the batteries that in some (i.e., 2) cases led to the two notorious incidents? Were maltreated batteries more sensitive to the previously "rough" charging waveform or operation outside of the new, narrower voltage window?

Are B and the airlines currently (no pun intended) speaking to 787 ground crews to keep this maltreatment of the batteries from recurring?

It sounds like the batteries were driven into a corner from which they had no graceful exit -- well, usually graceful, in that they got replaced, but on two occasions pretty dramatic.

I could imagine that ground crew found out that the 787 batteries were so powerful that they could skip supplying external power. Why bother driving the generator buggy across the tarmac when the on-board kit does it all just fine? Something like that?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-03-27 19:06:16 and read 33485 times.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 47):
I guess what I'm asking is: Is that a smoking gun or not?

Not!..

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 49):
Are B and the airlines currently (no pun intended) speaking to 787 ground crews to keep this maltreatment of the batteries from recurring?

I believe the manuals are specific, however who knows what the customer airlines tell their crews, or even contract crews at various airports.. However in most cases all they had to do was remove the battery for recharge in a shop equipped with a flame hood and extinguisher..         

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-27 19:47:01 and read 33464 times.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 49):
Did this maltreatment do something to the batteries that in some (i.e., 2) cases led to the two notorious incidents?

No, because the batteries were run down to the point that they triggered the safety systems and could no longer be charged aboard the plane. They were removed and new batteries installed. The removed batteries were then sent back to Yuasa and refurbished, reconditioned and recharged and became "new" batteries.



Quoting bellancacf (Reply 49):
Were maltreated batteries more sensitive to the previously "rough" charging waveform or operation outside of the new, narrower voltage window?

Please see above.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: bellancacf
Posted 2013-03-27 21:18:09 and read 33547 times.

Then we do have a mystery, haven't we?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-03-27 23:29:50 and read 33450 times.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 52):
Then we do have a mystery, haven't we?

No, you may want a mystery, however this has been explained over and over and is not an issue for returning to the air.. it may be an issue for airlines lying into airports where the grounds crews are not that airlines employees, or where ramp personnel chose to ignore the manual. but it is not Boeing's or the FAA's problem.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 14ccKemiskt
Posted 2013-03-28 01:06:41 and read 33304 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 46):
2) ANA replaced about 100 to 150 batteries before the fire events, and nobody complained about it

Do you know that nobody complained or are you guessing? The number of battery replacements indicate that each of ANA's 787 had a battery replaced at the rate of one per month per airplane. That fact should get me complaining if I was the customer.

The reliability of the 787 remains to be proven. If the battery smoke event rate would have been the same on the 737, we would have had such an event on a plane more than once per day.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-28 01:34:38 and read 33268 times.

Quoting 14ccKemiskt (Reply 54):
Do you know that nobody complained or are you guessing? The number of battery replacements indicate that each of ANA's 787 had a battery replaced at the rate of one per month per airplane. That fact should get me complaining if I was the customer.

Well, we don't know for sure but this is literally what an ANA spokesman said:

Quote:
“We have had at least 100, possibly approaching 150, bad batteries so far,” the person said. “It’s common.”

It's common. It's just one of those parts that needs to be replaced often. If the industrie already have accepted this, thus the proposed battery fix should be a no-brainer.

[Edited 2013-03-28 01:35:33]

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-03-28 01:36:26 and read 33262 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 46):
4) So if Boeng can contain the fire then we are back at #2, so that should be enough

It should be enough to lift the grounding perhaps. But likely not enugh to let the aircraft have extended ETOPS of any kind, as the aircraft would have to divert to the nearest airport ASAP after the fire event. Which would significantly limit the usefulness of the aircraft if we stopped just at containment.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: bellancacf
Posted 2013-03-28 09:56:29 and read 32924 times.

@kanban #53:

I didn't make myself clear -- sorry. The "mystery" I was thinking about is just what caused those two batteries to go off the reservation. I was asking earlier whether the rate at which the Li batteries were being swapped out was unusually high or not -- do I know the answer to that yet? -- forgotten. Then I was wondering whether the treatment (on the ground, presumably) that was causing the batteries to have to be swapped out could have set up some cells for more dramatic failure -- and the answer was 'no'.

So, there went a possible chain of inquiry. I had thought that maybe drawing down the cells too far set up growth of spicules or deposits which in turn would trigger further internal changes -- you know, looking for some mechanism to connect how the batteries had been treated and how those two had eventually reacted. Since I am told that there is no such connection -- no matter how suspicious it may seem to me sitting out here well beyond the sidelines -- , there's still no mechanism known behind the failures. Hence, mystery.

No. I don't want a "mystery". I'm making no connection whatever between this and return to flight. I'm just a retired researcher who tends to try to find patterns, and the 100 - 150 number just surprised me and set me going

BTW, Boeing's other changes (narrowed charging range, smoothed charging waveform) leads me to suspect that somewhere (Yuasa? Boeing? Musk?) someone is looking for a mechanism connecting charging/discharging history to thermal misbehavior, too. Doesn't it strike you the same way?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-03-28 09:57:04 and read 32942 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 56):
But likely not enugh to let the aircraft have extended ETOPS of any kind, as the aircraft would have to divert to the nearest airport ASAP after the fire event. Which would significantly limit the usefulness of the aircraft if we stopped just at containment.

The FAA and other regulators will approve ETOPS after the appropriate testing is done, and engines and structures are deemed robust enough. They may limit it if dispatched with either the APU or the APU battery off line... The decision will not based on opinion posts on A.net.

Based on the new design there will be no fire event.. besides what was seen burning was not the battery but the cabling which has been changed to inflammable insulation materials. What the FAA will look at is if one or two cells fail, is diversion required.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-03-28 10:11:21 and read 32886 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 58):
What the FAA will look at is if one or two cells fail, is diversion required.

How will the flight crew know what the exact nature of the fire is, and how many cells are involved or will get involved? Isn't Boeing standard instruction to divert / land ASAP is there is any smoke or fire?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: twiga
Posted 2013-03-28 12:33:11 and read 32630 times.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 57):
No. I don't want a "mystery". I'm making no connection whatever between this and return to flight. I'm just a retired researcher who tends to try to find patterns, and the 100 - 150 number just surprised me and set me going

Your overall line of inquiry is very sound. And with such frequent battery failures for what ever reason has to raise questions. If this was your auto battery just think of the annoyance.

Quoting kanban (Reply 58):
Based on the new design there will be no fire event.. besides what was seen burning was not the battery but the cabling which has been changed to inflammable insulation materials. What the FAA will look at is if one or two cells fail, is diversion required.
Quoting sankaps (Reply 59):
How will the flight crew know what the exact nature of the fire is, and how many cells are involved or will get involved? Isn't Boeing standard instruction to divert / land ASAP is there is any smoke or fire?

I agree the impact of one or two cells burning will be minimal particulary with their new containment system when compared with their origional blue tin box 1/16 and 1/32 inch thick aluminum alloy and considering at least 5 or 6 cells were burning at once - the first cells having used up their energy by the time the last cells kicked in. Also the rate of chemical reaction- hence 'rate' of thermal output will be significantly slowed down by going to 500 deg C cell to cell insulators as opposed to 150 deg C insulators.

Regarding sankaps question, I would think they could quite easily determine/ monitor if one or more cells were burning by installing temperature sensors on the new containment vessel, and relay info to the flight deck - the heat signature would be significantly different. Anyway just a thought.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-03-28 12:54:34 and read 32574 times.

Quoting twiga (Reply 60):
Regarding sankaps question, I would think they could quite easily determine/ monitor if one or more cells were burning by installing temperature sensors on the new containment vessel, and relay info to the flight deck - the heat signature would be significantly different.

Sure, but how would they be sure that additional cells would not start burning as well? I am sure most if not all pilots would want to divert / land as soon as there is ANY sign of a battery overheat / smoke / fire event, and not continue flying in the hope the event is limited to what is first found reported by the sensors.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-03-28 13:16:11 and read 32536 times.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 57):
Doesn't it strike you the same way?

in a word ----- yes

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-28 14:24:09 and read 32410 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 56):
It should be enough to lift the grounding perhaps. But likely not enugh to let the aircraft have extended ETOPS of any kind, as the aircraft would have to divert to the nearest airport ASAP after the fire event. Which would significantly limit the usefulness of the aircraft if we stopped just at containment.

So what kind of fix should Boeing develop to regain ETOPS? I don't believe in switching to another type of battery, but I'm not sure if it will ever be possible to prevent failure of lithium ion batteries.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-03-28 14:35:35 and read 32391 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 63):

Quoting sankaps (Reply 56):
It should be enough to lift the grounding perhaps. But likely not enugh to let the aircraft have extended ETOPS of any kind, as the aircraft would have to divert to the nearest airport ASAP after the fire event. Which would significantly limit the usefulness of the aircraft if we stopped just at containment.

So what kind of fix should Boeing develop to regain ETOPS? I don't believe in switching to another type of battery, but I'm not sure if it will ever be possible to prevent failure of lithium ion batteries.

The fix was completed. Boeing and the airlines will need to demonstrate safe flying at ETOPS 180 for a year or so to qualify for ETOPS 240 consideration and beyond.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: JHwk
Posted 2013-03-28 16:47:49 and read 32198 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 63):
I'm not sure if it will ever be possible to prevent failure of lithium ion batteries.

While the on-board battery incinerator system will limit possible cascading failures, the real change is more that the batteries will not be used as hard with the lower and upper limits compressing, effectively reducing the useable capacity of the battery. Failures will still happen, but if you reduce the total watt-seconds consumed that has a fairly linear improvement to life, and the watt-seconds per hour on recharge likely improves life more exponentially (2x increase in recharge time is a 4x improvement in life. I imagine Boeing is expecting the battery lives to triple with the changes. The fewer battery failures you have, the few "spectacular" failures you end up with.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: twiga
Posted 2013-03-28 18:37:11 and read 32015 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 59):
How will the flight crew know what the exact nature of the fire is, and how many cells are involved or will get involved? Isn't Boeing standard instruction to divert / land ASAP is there is any smoke or fire?
Quoting sankaps (Reply 61):
Sure, but how would they be sure that additional cells would not start burning as well? I am sure most if not all pilots would want to divert / land as soon as there is ANY sign of a battery overheat / smoke / fire event, and not continue flying in the hope the event is limited to what is first found reported by the sensors.

I was trying to answer the first part of your question #59 and believe you got it, but just to further clarify. If one cell sets off it would produce X heat and X temperature. If two cells were to burn simultaneously they would produce 2X heat and perhaps 2X temperature (heat and temperature may not be directly proportional). In any case the pilots would be aware of the severity of the situation and the changing conditions and be able to take appropriate action. It may be from all their testing that they know what the chances of runaway to other cells would be vis a vis new insulation could be 1: 1,000,000 or more or less by a factor of 10 a 100 or a 1000 we just don't know. So there could be some rationalization based on their testing that if one cell goes (because its a drop in the bucket with their new containment system) monitor the system and just keep flying. If two cells go land ASAP. We just don't know, but we can speculate.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-03-28 19:53:36 and read 31937 times.

Quoting twiga (Reply 66):
In any case the pilots would be aware of the severity of the situation and the changing conditions and be able to take appropriate action. It may be from all their testing that they know what the chances of runaway to other cells would be vis a vis new insulation could be 1: 1,000,000 or more or less by a factor of 10 a 100 or a 1000 we just don't know....So there could be some rationalization based on their testing that if one cell goes (because its a drop in the bucket with their new containment system) monitor the system and just keep flying. If two cells go land ASAP. We just don't know, but we can speculate

Everybody seems to think the pilots will have intimate knowledge of what is happening inside the "magic box" but we have heard nothing about any changes to provide more information to the crew. The ANA pilots noticed a smell, but it wasn't until there was a smoke detection that they found out they had a bigger issue. At this point there is no battery fire /smoke detection system and I don't think there will be. There are status messages and a couple of advisory messages associated with the Main and APU batteries but at that level there are no flight crew procedures related to the messages. Had the new containment system been in place on the ANA airplane the pilots may have gotten a message but would have continued on to their destination, be it 5 minutes or 5 hours away, without a care.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-03-29 01:32:53 and read 31687 times.

I find it absurd so many think the engineers working on the problem are such morons not thinking about monitoring the new solutions etc.

Why is it then that they are working on the problem and all the experts here are not?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: scbriml
Posted 2013-03-29 02:16:07 and read 31660 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 68):
I find it absurd so many think the engineers working on the problem are such morons not thinking about monitoring the new solutions etc.

Their first attempt wasn't so great, was it?   

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-03-29 03:49:52 and read 31539 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 69):

I do not think B put as many engineers on the first solution, they rather outsourced it to Thales iirc. That then came back to bite them in the..

But still I hold higher standards of B engineers than many here I guess.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-29 06:03:35 and read 31376 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 69):
Their first attempt wasn't so great, was it?     

The APU battery on JL8 was in thermal runaway for some time, and yet the damage was not such that would have affected safe operation, much less insured a hull loss, if it had happened in flight rather than on the ground.

NH692 safely diverted in-flight to the nearest alternate and the damage of that event also appears to have not been sufficient to affect flight safety or result in a hull loss if the nearest alternate had been much farther.

So it was indeed not "great", but it certainly wasn't "bad".

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-03-29 07:49:47 and read 31203 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 67):
There are status messages and a couple of advisory messages associated with the Main and APU batteries but at that level there are no flight crew procedures related to the messages.

So if the FAA certifies Boeing's fix, will they attach some new procedural strings should the crew get a battery failure indication? Presumably the smoke, fire or fumes checklist won't be applicable since, even if the battery is totally incinerating, no smoke/fumes will be detected in the airplane as it's all going overboard. Will the FAA make 787s divert in the case of a battery failure indication just to be on the safe side?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: twiga
Posted 2013-03-29 12:17:07 and read 30856 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 67):
Everybody seems to think the pilots will have intimate knowledge of what is happening inside the "magic box" but we have heard nothing about any changes to provide more information to the crew.

I agree we have'nt heard anything about changes to providing the crew with more informative battery information, but then again these are details that I would'nt expect to hear about at this time since they could be part of ongoing negotiations between Boeing and the Regulators. Its quite possible the Regulators could mandate improved battery data to the flight crew - other than you have a burning or dead battery.

Quoting hivue (Reply 72):
So if the FAA certifies Boeing's fix, will they attach some new procedural strings should the crew get a battery failure indication? Presumably the smoke, fire or fumes checklist won't be applicable since, even if the battery is totally incinerating, no smoke/fumes will be detected in the airplane as it's all going overboard.

Exactly - there has to be some changes to information provided.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-03-29 15:24:55 and read 30649 times.

Quoting twiga (Reply 60):
If this was your auto battery just think of the annoyance.

Above we're being told the product is being mis-used akin to leaving the headlights on too long...

Quoting JHwk (Reply 65):
the real change is more that the batteries will not be used as hard with the lower and upper limits compressing, effectively reducing the useable capacity of the battery. Failures will still happen, but if you reduce the total watt-seconds consumed that has a fairly linear improvement to life, and the watt-seconds per hour on recharge likely improves life more exponentially (2x increase in recharge time is a 4x improvement in life.

Seems then we'll have even more frequent swaps since the threshold for misuse is being lowered.

Quoting JHwk (Reply 65):
I imagine Boeing is expecting the battery lives to triple with the changes.

It should if the battery is spending much more time being serviced after being swapped out, but I doubt that's a desired outcome, but better than the pax hitting the slides...

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-03-29 15:29:13 and read 30628 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 74):
Seems then we'll have even more frequent swaps since the threshold for misuse is being lowered.

If I read correctly they are also lowering the threshold where the battery has to be removed from the a/c for re-charging, time will tell whether its a wash or an improvement.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: rcair1
Posted 2013-03-29 16:34:17 and read 30499 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 74):
Seems then we'll have even more frequent swaps since the threshold for misuse is being lowered
Quoting par13del (Reply 75):
If I read correctly they are also lowering the threshold where the battery has to be removed from the a/c for re-charging, time will tell whether its a wash or an improvement.

I believe what they are doing is providing margin between a "shutoff" and "non-rechargeable" levels. In other words, the airplane systems (on the ground of course) will shut down at a point where you can still safely recharge in the plane. It will mean a shorter run time on the ground, but less replacements due to deep discharge.

Quoting hivue (Reply 72):
So if the FAA certifies Boeing's fix, will they attach some new procedural strings should the crew get a battery failure indication? Presumably the smoke, fire or fumes checklist won't be applicable since, even if the battery is totally incinerating, no smoke/fumes will be detected in the airplane as it's all going overboard. Will the FAA make 787s divert in the case of a battery failure indication just to be on the safe side?

Correct, smoke/fumes will not apply. However, they will certainly know the battery failed - and that failure may require a division (probably depends on the flight profile being flown).

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-03-29 17:14:33 and read 30862 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 76):
However, they will certainly know the battery failed - and that failure may require a division (probably depends on the flight profile being flown).

That would require some hardware/software changes as none of the present battery messages have procedures associated with them. The highest level of any battery messages is Advisory -- the Main battery has two which cover battery discharging or being low -- neither which fits the scenario. Boeing would have to come up with a Warning message that in itself would have to be certified and that is no easy task. If they do go down that path it will set an ugly precedent.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: bellancacf
Posted 2013-03-29 19:39:35 and read 30721 times.

Don't understand. In what way an "ugly precedent"?

There's now a battery with an unknown failure rate (yes, we can hope, but ...) inside a well-sealed box capable of containing a certain amount of pressure, whatever it will tolerate before blowing the disc to the outside. Isn't there going to be some way of letting the crew and maintenance know a little about what they're going to find with they start to take the top off that box? A little button, at least, like the one on your turkey to let you know that it's hot inside.   Actually, I suspect that all this stuff has been worked into the solution; we just don't know about it because your friendly, local intelligence service has more blabbermouths than the aviation industry, it seems. Does anything _ever_ leak from these guys?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-03-29 20:06:13 and read 30662 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 76):
I believe what they are doing is providing margin between a "shutoff" and "non-rechargeable" levels. In other words, the airplane systems (on the ground of course) will shut down at a point where you can still safely recharge in the plane. It will mean a shorter run time on the ground, but less replacements due to deep discharge.

That's the way I read it.. good to see you still hanging in there.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 78):

Don't understand. In what way an "ugly precedent"?

the crews are already swamped with data and adding more alerts for systems that might fail could cause overload to the degree that something vital will be missed. The question is would the added information cause any deviation from normal flight? if it's just information with no required non standard action, then why add it to the conscious overload? Kind of like having a monitor and aural alert for blue ice buildup on the drain mast.. what are you going to do.. open the door and have a FA pilot try to kick it off?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: bellancacf
Posted 2013-03-29 21:13:46 and read 30566 times.

Aah. Good prioritizing. Is there a place where the crew can read up, once they've landed, on little things that have happened during the flight, like, oh yes, one of the batteries boiled over and would someone please clean up the spill?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-03-29 22:16:47 and read 30486 times.

If the airplane is safe to go back in the air, creating a "Warning" message where the only procedure is to divert to the nearest suitable airport for something that, barring any other messages, will be over and done before you get there is ludacris. It makes one statement -- this airplane is not safe. A myriad of information is already downloaded to maintenance during and after every flight -- a few more lines of code dedicated to the battery will now probably be add.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: bellancacf
Posted 2013-03-30 07:57:12 and read 30055 times.

How about some visual indication of conditions inside the box? Do you think that something will be built into the box itself?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-30 08:11:31 and read 30028 times.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 80):
Is there a place where the crew can read up, once they've landed, on little things that have happened during the flight, like, oh yes, one of the batteries boiled over and would someone please clean up the spill?

I would think such functionality could be built into the data recorders that airlines have on their aircraft for tracking maintenance issues (I don't recall the official nomenclature) if it is in fact not already present.

I am assuming the current flight crew alerting system would inform the crew if either battery became unavailable (especially the APU battery, since it is necessary to operate the APU). So if the crew received such an alert, they follow whatever procedures their airline dictates in such a situation and then once at the airport the maintenance team can query that data recorder and that would tell them what actually happened.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-03-30 08:35:13 and read 30023 times.

I think Boeing's "Flight Bag" maintenance system or what ever it's called is the place for this data.. loading up the flight data recorders puts un necessary data there which would require additional procedures to obtain and interpret. One of the tech writer's mottos is "brevity and simplicity" that should apply to this situation as well. example when a plane is on a collision course, the aural command is "Pull UP!" not "pardon the intrusion, however an object that could terminate this journey is approaching at your elevation at 173 degrees. It is suggest that...." well you get the picture. So putting an indicator in the maintenance computer on board is the most logical and easiest to access.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 82):
How about some visual indication of conditions inside the box

how about eight thermal pop-ups like used on T day turkeys.. one for each cell..      

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: rcair1
Posted 2013-03-30 09:23:22 and read 29958 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 77):
That would require some hardware/software changes as none of the present battery messages have procedures associated with them. The highest level of any battery messages is Advisory -- the Main battery has two which cover battery discharging or being low --

Thanks for that info. I was unsure if there were existing profiles/cases where a main battery failure could cause a diversion. I do NOT think adding a warning is warranted if there were not already one there for battery failure (as opposed to smoke). Since smoke will not happen - then whatever level of warning/diversion on main battery failure should stay the same.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 82):
Do you think that something will be built into the box itself?

Pretty dark in there   And what will it tell them. If the battery emits smoke - any visibility inside would be quickly lost. With the venting/containment system in place, diversion for that is not required. In this case, fat, dumb and happy may be the best result.

Quoting kanban (Reply 79):
the crews are already swamped with data and adding more alerts for systems that might fail could cause overload to the degree that something vital will be missed.

Agreed.
Information overload is an issue. We have seen that with other cases - it can cause loss of situational awareness or focus on the wrong thing. Even the NB A380 case is an interesting study. While the pilots - all 5 I think - were working very hard to get through all the ECAM notices - they still did not know everything. For instance, they did not know the #1 engine was still running when they landed.
It is a really hard problem. Where do you draw the line between too much and too little. Both can cause disasters.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Bogi
Posted 2013-03-30 11:13:31 and read 29850 times.


Happy Easter

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: twiga
Posted 2013-03-30 12:39:53 and read 29804 times.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 82):
How about some visual indication of conditions inside the box? Do you think that something will be built into the box itself?
Quoting kanban (Reply 84):
One of the tech writer's mottos is "brevity and simplicity" that should apply to this situation as well.

What would be wrong with 150 year old steam technology like mounting a pressure guage on the containment vessel. But I am sure their monitoring system (by measuring thermals with temperature sensors and pressures at the containment vessel) could tell them if they were dealing with one cell or two cells or more cells toasting and info could be relayed/ recorded and action(s) as appropriate could be taken based on severity of situation as Boeing and the regulators decide. I agree with other posters overload of info at the flight deck could be an issue and don't know what the answer is until confidence in the fix is established. I personally think the toasting of one or two cells in their new containment system will be a drop in the bucket. Anyway we don't know whats going on behind the scene and can only speculate.

I was wondering, when FAA approval is given will results of Boeings testing be made public or is this information confidential between Boeing and the regulators because of proprietary issues? Or will they only make available what the public needs to know to instill confidence in safety?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Pugman211
Posted 2013-03-31 04:27:47 and read 29370 times.

Has ZA005 done its test flight yet?

Thanks

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Humanitarian
Posted 2013-03-31 08:45:24 and read 29147 times.

Quoting Pugman211 (Reply 88):
Has ZA005 done its test flight yet?

My understanding is that it would be doing a battery failure test on the ground. Have not heard if that has been completed.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-03-31 08:58:09 and read 29138 times.

Quoting Pugman211 (Reply 88):
Has ZA005 done its test flight yet?

Thanks
Quoting Humanitarian (Reply 89):
My understanding is that it would be doing a battery failure test on the ground. Have not heard if that has been completed.

My understanding was the only certification flight taking place was on LOT ZA272, ZA005 was only being used for ground testing of the battery.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-03-31 09:09:00 and read 29096 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 90):
My understanding was the only certification flight taking place was on LOT ZA272, ZA005 was only being used for ground testing of the battery.

Perhaps this was not a certification flight, but a test flight that was supposed to take place yesterday to test the power panels was postponed. See http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/...ght-intended-to-test-power-panels/

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-03-31 10:28:19 and read 29013 times.

Quoting Pugman211 (Reply 88):
Has ZA005 done its test flight yet?
Quoting Humanitarian (Reply 89):
My understanding is that it would be doing a battery failure test on the ground. Have not heard if that has been completed.
Quoting sankaps (Reply 91):
Perhaps this was not a certification flight, but a test flight that was supposed to take place yesterday to test the power panels was postponed

It appears the ZA005 test flight is unrelated to the present grounding so it really isn't a point of discussion here--it's just another test flight. But it does beg the question--are all the battery modification ground tests, including the battery failure test, complete and is Boeing returning to its normal testing schedule on ZA005? With the AD the priority it seems strange that they would be working other tests on the airplane, unless they were done.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-03-31 12:33:35 and read 28882 times.

They seem to test a new electrical board? Otherwise they will test the PIP2 of the GEnx engine as well.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-03-31 13:22:22 and read 28866 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 92):
But it does beg the question--are all the battery modification ground tests, including the battery failure test, complete and is Boeing returning to its normal testing schedule on ZA005?

Well, in this article http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...20671693_boeingtestflightxml.html, it says that "McNerney also said that Boeing was taking the opportunity of the battery fix downtime “to tighten up some things and make sure we’re in good shape as we get this plane back into service.”

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-03-31 13:33:17 and read 28809 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 94):
Well, in this article http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...20671693_boeingtestflightxml.html, it says that "McNerney also said that Boeing was taking the opportunity of the battery fix downtime “to tighten up some things and make sure we’re in good shape as we get this plane back into service.”

Power panels sound like they could fall in that category but that probably wouldn't be available when the airplanes go back into service.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-31 15:57:13 and read 28666 times.

ZA005 is testing revisions to the power distribution panels to address minor short-circuits that have occurred on a number of revenue flights for UA, NH and AI as well as a QR delivery flight. In each case, redundant systems took over and the flights continued to their intended destination with the exception of one UA flight where the crew chose to divert to MSY.

Last I had heard, all these affected panels were from a single production batch and it was assumed their was a QC issue during manufacturing. That being said, it sounds like Boeing instituted a design refinement, anyway, perhaps to prevent such a short from requiring switching to redundant systems.

[Edited 2013-03-31 15:58:20]

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-01 10:49:08 and read 28082 times.

ZA272 will takeoff in about 25 minutes to test the power panels.

Flight plan here: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/B...2/history/20130401/1800Z/KPAE/KMWH

An EWA flight with the FAA onboard is scheduled for tomorrow.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-04-03 04:53:33 and read 27238 times.

A piece of encouraging news:

ANA Pilots to Undergo 'Resumption' Training in Hopes 787 Returns in June

Quote:

Japan’s All Nippon Airways, Boeing’s (BA) largest Dreamliner customer, reportedly plans to start training pilots on the 787 this month under the assumption the fleet will return to service in June.

ANA, which has cancelled more than 3,600 flights through the end of May because of the 787 problem, will put its roughly 200 Dreamliner pilots through "flight resumption simulator training" starting in mid-April, according to a report by Reuters.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-03 12:00:26 and read 26484 times.

Another flight plan filed for ZA272. Flight is unrelated to battery testing/certification.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE272

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-04-03 20:29:45 and read 26007 times.

Looks like we'd better not hold our breath!   This says that Boeing have a lot more testing to do yet:-

"Boeing (BA) said it has finished more than half of the testing on its proposed battery fix for the 787, with the rest of the ground and flight tests coming in the next several days.

"The test results so far have been in line with the testing Boeing did when it was developing the fix, spokesman Marc Birtel said on Wednesday."


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_1...liner-testing-more-than-half-done/

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2013-04-03 21:59:11 and read 25883 times.

Quoting litz (Reply 41):
I think a lot of people are missing that we have two issues at hand :

1) the battery failed
2) the battery containment failed

The first is not necessarily bad; it happens and you replace it.

The second, however, grounded the airplane.

At this point they don't know why #1 happened, but the forensics on #2 were pretty clear.

The new box solves (imho, pretty darned conclusively) #2.

#1 is probably still up in the air; they have changes they suspect will fix it, but aren't sure.

Meanwhile the new box solves #2 and they can get back to flying airplanes.

100% correct

Quoting kanban (Reply 43):
thanks for the clarification that 3500 posts over 14 threads had failed to communicate.

Amen...

I wonder how long will it take to find out what causes the batteries to fail, and I mean the critical paths that lead to a thermal runaway...

I am Impressed the 787 has been grounded for so long, I expected 2 weeks tops...

TRB

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2013-04-04 06:16:59 and read 25867 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 100):
Looks like we'd better not hold our breath! This says that Boeing have a lot more testing to do yet:-

Wonder if the rest of the testing involve cycling test. If you want to simulate 5, 10, 25 years worth of actual service, even if you are accelerating the cycle, you still need time. Specially if you are concern that quick charge and dis-charge cycling will skew your results.

bt

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-04 06:22:40 and read 25898 times.

Boeing Engineers Standing by in Japan to Start 787 Battery Fix, source.

I guess certification is imminent now.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-04-04 07:17:02 and read 25749 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 103):
Boeing Engineers Standing by in Japan to Start 787 Battery Fix, source.

There was a pair of 788 sitting idle at HND today in a different area than the others, I assume these are the first to get the fix.

When the first flight is scheduled, I'll be there   

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-04-04 07:49:09 and read 25695 times.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 102):
Wonder if the rest of the testing involve cycling test. If you want to simulate 5, 10, 25 years worth of actual service, even if you are accelerating the cycle, you still need time

Not everything goes through cycling tests. The container is so overbuilt compared to other parts of the airplane it is not really a concern and the battery even with a normal lifespan wouldn't live to see 2 years let alone 5 or 15.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-04-04 08:13:12 and read 25597 times.

We can safely assume that once Boeing settled on the fix, they've been running battery charge/discharge tests on their ground based test bed 24/7. They've also likely pushed the battery beyond what the new settings would be and deliberately pushed the battery into various failure modes to demonstrate the new standards in both the insulation, charging/discharging and containment (as we've seen from the Boeing video).

They should be on the last round of testing and then the FAA will weigh in as to whether they want/need/require more testing overall or to set up specific testing targeting a particular area for the FAA.

Once that is done, the FAA publishes its new directive and Boeing implements it ASAP.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-04-04 08:55:57 and read 25478 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 106):
We can safely assume that once Boeing settled on the fix, they've been running battery charge/discharge tests on their ground based test bed 24/7. They've also likely pushed the battery beyond what the new settings would be and deliberately pushed the battery into various failure modes to demonstrate the new standards in both the insulation, charging/discharging and containment (as we've seen from the Boeing video).

They should be on the last round of testing and then the FAA will weigh in as to whether they want/need/require more testing overall or to set up specific testing targeting a particular area for the FAA.

Once that is done, the FAA publishes its new directive and Boeing implements it ASAP.

Nope, we can't assume any of that.

As for FAA directives they may depend on what comes out at the FAA public hearings as much as test results of Boeings proposed fix.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-04 09:32:44 and read 25383 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 107):
As for FAA directives they may depend on what comes out at the FAA public hearings

Which public hearings? The FAA does not hold public hearings on ADs.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-04-04 09:44:54 and read 25369 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 107):

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 106):
We can safely assume that once Boeing settled on the fix, they've been running battery charge/discharge tests on their ground based test bed 24/7. They've also likely pushed the battery beyond what the new settings would be and deliberately pushed the battery into various failure modes to demonstrate the new standards in both the insulation, charging/discharging and containment (as we've seen from the Boeing video).

They should be on the last round of testing and then the FAA will weigh in as to whether they want/need/require more testing overall or to set up specific testing targeting a particular area for the FAA.

Once that is done, the FAA publishes its new directive and Boeing implements it ASAP.

Nope, we can't assume any of that.

As for FAA directives they may depend on what comes out at the FAA public hearings as much as test results of Boeings proposed fix.

Time will tell but I think we can assume these steps have been taken already. From published reports we've seen, Boeing identified several changes which would minimize the risk of an overcharge situation (change high/low limits). We've seen them add insulation with more than 3x temp tolerance between the cells, we've seen them increase the distance between the cells, and we've seen the containment box and vent system.

The FAA is concerned with safety. Assuming a worst case runaway on the battery, what risks are there to the airworthiness of the aircraft and souls aboard? The new "box" withstood 3x the over pressure which would occur if all cells blew at once. The cells in the JL and NH incidents didn't blow all at once. Plan for worse case and add margin over that point. Look at the wing stress tests for an example of over engineering.

It is possible the FAA will say they don't think the fixes are good enough, they can say they want the whole thing started over from scratch but how many times has the FAA said that?

The FAA doesn't do public hearings. They do issue directives. The NTSB does do public hearings and they do issue recommendations.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: twiga
Posted 2013-04-04 12:12:13 and read 25048 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 106):
They've also likely pushed the battery beyond what the new settings would be and deliberately pushed the battery into various failure modes to demonstrate the new standards in both the insulation,
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 109):
Time will tell but I think we can assume these steps have been taken already. From published reports we've seen, Boeing identified several changes which would minimize the risk of an overcharge situation (change high/low limits). We've seen them add insulation with more than 3x temp tolerance between the cells, we've seen them increase the distance between the cells, and we've seen the containment box and vent system.

I agree. Wouldn't they have to quantify these results to some statistical values, similar to what they had to do origionally for thermal runaway, if I recall correctly 1:10^7 Hrs. Obviously they won't need anything near this number because of the near 100% fool proof containment system, but the new statistic for battery failure worse case seneario (all 8 cells) in conjunction with the new containment system would have to meet the origional statistic of 1:10^7 Hrs. So I would suspect the regulators might want to see two numbers for the enhancements (particularly insulation for #2) to the battery.
1) What are the statistical chances for one cell to short and burn. Without the root cause I suspect this number might not be possible.
2) What are the statistical chances for thermal runaway beyond the initial shorting cell involving more cell(s).

And also with the enhanced insulation (from 150 to 500 deg C) if other cells do runaway it will take longer to consume all the energy of the battery. So how much longer for all 8 cells? This is important because the severity of the situation depends on the "rates of increase" and "maximums" temperature, pressure etc. so if the runaway is significantly prolonged the severity of the event is significantly reduced. And I would think this has a bearing on the design of the containment system - pressures, temperatures, heat sink capacity etc. So I think it takes alot of testing to quantify all these things. How they can put statistical numbers to some of these items by failing say a dozen batteries is beyond me - perhaps somebody with a statistical background wants to jump in here. Its probably as complicated and mysterious, at least to me, as in how they came up with their first number of 1:10^7 if I have it correct.

I was also wondering, when FAA approval is finally given will results of Boeings testing be made public or is this information confidential between Boeing and the regulators because of possible proprietary issues? Or will they only make available what the public needs to know to instill confidence in the safety of the system? How do these things normally work?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-04-04 13:09:36 and read 24899 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 107):
Nope, we can't assume any of that.

Boeing has developed a certification plan for the new battery system and has submitted that to the FAA. The FAA has accepted that plan. Boeing is in the process of ticking the boxes. Once they are all ticked it is highly unlikely the FAA will say "wait a minute -- we didn't mean that. You have to make some modifications to the plan."

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 107):
As for FAA directives they may depend on what comes out at the FAA public hearings

As others have pointed out, this apparently is a mistaken reference to the upcoming NTSB hearing. It will be interesting to see if this hearing and/or its findings affects activities already underway to return the 787 to revenue service quickly.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-04-04 13:33:18 and read 24834 times.

Quoting twiga (Reply 110):
I was also wondering, when FAA approval is finally given will results of Boeings testing be made public or is this information confidential between Boeing and the regulators because of possible proprietary issues? Or will they only make available what the public needs to know to instill confidence in the safety of the system? How do these things normally work?

I would think under the Freedom of Information Act, one could obtain this data if it is not published. We have most of the relevant details on the fix and the testing. Boeing may elect to publish an overview of the test data itself to boost public confidence in the a/c and the company.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KELPkid
Posted 2013-04-04 15:10:55 and read 24677 times.

Quoting hivue (Reply 111):
As others have pointed out, this apparently is a mistaken reference to the upcoming NTSB hearing. It will be interesting to see if this hearing and/or its findings affects activities already underway to return the 787 to revenue service quickly.

NTSB services the FAA in an investigative/advisory role only. If the FAA chooses to ignore the NTSB, well, there is prior precedence for that   Not every single NTSB recommendation has been pushed forward by the FAA as an Airworthiness Directive or new FAR   

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-04-04 15:51:30 and read 24583 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 112):
I would think under the Freedom of Information Act, one could obtain this data if it is not published.

because the data may allude to proprietary design criteria, it is highly unlikely that it will be released. Of course that will start a whole new batch of conspiracy theories...   

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: twiga
Posted 2013-04-04 15:51:33 and read 24602 times.

Quoting twiga (Reply 110):
So how much longer for all 8 cells? This is important because the severity of the situation depends on the "rates of increase" and "maximums" temperature, pressure etc. so if the runaway is significantly prolonged the severity of the event is significantly reduced. And I would think this has a bearing on the design of the containment system - pressures, temperatures, heat sink capacity etc. So I think it takes alot of testing to quantify all these things.

Sorry a slight correction here that some of you may have picked up. Mathematically the engineers and scientists would have quantified these things in designing the containment system - the testing would be to confirm their theory, assumptions, numbers, factors of safety and to develop the required statistics.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: twiga
Posted 2013-04-04 16:13:59 and read 24540 times.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 113):
NTSB services the FAA in an investigative/advisory role only. If the FAA chooses to ignore the NTSB, well, there is prior precedence for that Not every single NTSB recommendation has been pushed forward by the FAA as an Airworthiness Directive or new FAR

You are probably right. But doesn't NTSB and the FAA both report to the same Boss (Sect of Transportation) and he may influence or have something to say like be on the same page - or is complete independence always the norm.




















y

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2013-04-05 06:24:42 and read 24052 times.

Quoting hivue (Reply 111):

Boeing has developed a certification plan for the new battery system and has submitted that to the FAA.
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 112):
I would think under the Freedom of Information Act, one could obtain this data if it is not published.
Quoting kanban (Reply 114):

because the data may allude to proprietary design criteria, it is highly unlikely that it will be released.

Yep, the qualification plan may be proprietary. The raw data from the testing is definitely proprietary althought he result (pass/faile) is definitely free to the public  

In term of testing. I forgot about some of the other testing that is required for qualifications. Besides the functional and life time testing (of the battery service life), there is the environmental testing (salt air, sand, dust, etc . . .) which sometimes require many cycles. There is thermal testing, cold soak, heat soak, water soak (humidity). There is vibration (functioning and non functioning), and static ultimate load analysis. Some of the testing (ultimate and limit load) may be avoided through analysis. However because they added new materials (the ceramic isolators) and increased the battery weight, they may have to re-do many of the test for cerfication.

Most critical may be the functional vibration as the increased battery weight may cause a change in the first mode of vibration frequency of the battery installation. If this mode drops down to the same natural frequency of the airframe, then there would be more re-designing to do.

bt

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-05 10:12:18 and read 23822 times.

And here we go:

Quote:
Just filed 787 demonstration flight plan - the final certification test for new battery system
http://twitter.com/BoeingAirplanes/status/320220023736107008
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE272

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-04-05 10:14:57 and read 23776 times.

Excellent, time to fly!

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-05 10:16:18 and read 23864 times.

The statement from Boeing:

Quote:
Boeing has filed a flight plan to conduct the 787 battery certification demonstration flight today on Line number 86, a Boeing-owned production airplane built for LOT Polish Airlines.

Today’s demonstration flight is the final certification test for the new battery system. The purpose of the test is to demonstrate that the new system performs as intended during normal and non-normal flight conditions.

The flight plan (which is always subject to change) can be viewed via FlightAware, which can also be used to track the airplane’s route, location and progress throughout the flight, at this link: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE272

The flight will take off and land at Paine Field in Everett, Wash. The flight is currently scheduled to depart at approx. 11:00 am Pacific time, but is subject to change. The flight is expected to be approximately 2 hours in length.

We plan to provide updates via Twitter (@BoeingAirplanes). A statement will be distributed to the media via e-mail after the flight is completed.

Separately, Boeing had this to say about advance preparations to return the airplane to service:

We have formed a series of AOG teams to help our customers implement the improvements once certified. One of the teams has already deployed but will not perform battery work until the solutions are certified. Details about the AOG teams are considered proprietary.

Our Aircraft-on-Ground Services team (AOG team) is prepared and equipped to support the implementation of approved modifications to the in-service fleet of 787s. The content of their work packages is driven by our customers’ requests. No work is being done on the battery systems at this time as we are still working through the certification process. AOG teams provide the unique capability for an on-site, comprehensive and integrated modification to airplanes. As always, the safety of those who fly aboard Boeing airplanes is our highest priority.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: b78710
Posted 2013-04-05 11:23:57 and read 23585 times.

So how soon after the certification flight will the fix be certified?

Anyone know how long the mods are likely to take per aircraft?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-05 11:29:11 and read 23587 times.

Quoting b78710 (Reply 121):
So how soon after the certification flight will the fix be certified?

Some say weeks, others say days. Either way, Boeing already deployed teams in Japan to install the battery and that is an indication that the paper work should only take a few days.

Quoting b78710 (Reply 121):
Anyone know how long the mods are likely to take per aircraft?

5 days per aircraft.

[Edited 2013-04-05 11:30:17]

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: humanitarian
Posted 2013-04-05 12:02:08 and read 23517 times.

Even the Secretary of Transportation is now sounding positive.

"Boeing has "good" 787 battery plan fix: official"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...liner-lahood-idUSBRE9340LN20130405

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: b78710
Posted 2013-04-05 12:12:09 and read 23430 times.

excellent news, its been a while coming

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Pugman211
Posted 2013-04-05 12:12:52 and read 23505 times.

Interesting that FR24 is showing 2 787's in the air at the same time, one being BOE272 and the other being 005 for LOT, (obviously a glitch tho)

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-04-05 14:15:54 and read 23288 times.

According to this story the flight was 'straightforward and uneventful.'

"Amid gusty winds, a LOT Polish airline plane rose from a runway near the Boeing factory just north of Seattle and soared out along the Pacific Coast, covering 755 miles in just under two hours before touching down at 12:28 pm Pacific Time (1928 GMT).

"The jet carried test equipment and Federal Aviation Administration officials, and flew a similar route to a test run March 25. At the conclusion, Boeing pronounced the flight "straightforward" and "uneventful."

"Boeing will now gather and analyze the data and submit the required materials to the FAA ... in coming days," the company said in a statement.

"Once we deliver the materials we stand ready to reply to additional requests and continue in dialog with the FAA to ensure we have met all of their expectations."


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...g-dreamliner-idUSL2N0CS16U20130405

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-06 02:58:06 and read 23156 times.

There is a second flight scheduled for today. Source http://kpae.blogspot.nl/2013/04/paine-field-april-5.html

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-07 05:13:25 and read 21791 times.

Update.

Quote:

...

Even in normal times, Boeing has so-called Airplane-On-Ground (AOG) teams ready to travel anywhere in the world where a customer’s jet is grounded.

This time, the teams will arrive with complete new battery kits. Each upgraded battery will have a stainless-steel containment box and a 1-inch-diameter titanium tube for venting any gases if overheating occurs.

For each of the batteries on any jet — one forward, just behind and below the cockpit; and one aft, just behind and below the wing — the AOG mechanics will have to drill a new hole in the fuselage and connect the venting tube to that outlet.

...

Most of the tests required by the FAA were completed on the ground, either in a lab or in a test plane parked at Paine Field.

Besides the outer containment box and the venting tubes, the new battery system includes high-temperature phenolic glass laminate dividers and clear electrical tape around each of the eight lithium-ion cells to provide both heat and electrical insulation.

To ensure the steel enclosure box can deal with even the worst-case battery overheating incident, one test Boeing conducted entailed igniting propane gas within the box to cause an explosion that had to be completely contained.

...

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: seat55a
Posted 2013-04-08 13:03:48 and read 20849 times.

UA is scheduling domestic 787 flights for 31 May, international for 10 June -- official (but subject to change), confirmed by United Continental Holdings.

(via Associated Press)

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: nomadd22
Posted 2013-04-08 13:13:55 and read 20824 times.

It doesn't take a month and a half to replace a battery box and upgrade charger software. What's the delay? I'd assume that Boeing would have been getting the boxes built from the minute they settled on the design. It would be a small risk.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-08 13:35:15 and read 20778 times.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 130):
What's the delay?

- Formal AD issuance process from FAA
- Modification schedule (Boeing's AOG team can't retrofit 50+ aircraft and get sign-off overnight)
- Crew currency
- Integrating flights into the schedule
- Contingencies

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: tugger
Posted 2013-04-08 15:39:24 and read 20603 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 23):
Quoting blrsea (Reply 20):
How different is it in drilling holes in CFRP fuselage compared to aluminium ones?

B787 Grounding: Tech/ops Thread Part 2 (by 777ER Mar 9 2013 in Tech Ops)

Quote:
For a hole in the 787, even if you use the sharpest cutting tool, you will always expect cracks and micro delamination at the cut edges. Sealing will prevent moisture from getting into the crack (and freeze causing additional delamination). However, most likely they will put some sort of bolted and/or bonded doubler around the cutout so any crack growth would be arrested by the bolt clamp-up.

Perhaps a dumb question, but would a laser be better for cutting through CFRP versus other methods? I am not saying they would use it in this situation but am just curious.

Tugg

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-08 16:38:50 and read 20486 times.

Quoting tugger (Reply 132):
Perhaps a dumb question, but would a laser be better for cutting through CFRP versus other methods? I am not saying they would use it in this situation but am just curious.

Lasers will melt the polymer and carbon fibers.

High-pressure water jets would be best, I would think, but can't be used in the field, so a saw is the best option.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2013-04-09 06:34:53 and read 19980 times.

Quoting tugger (Reply 132):
but would a laser be better for cutting through CFRP versus other methods?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 133):
Lasers will melt the polymer and carbon fibers.

In this case, the polymer (an epoxy), a thermoset will not melt but will burn and char into ashy powder. You are thinking about thermoplastics like polyester and nylon, which will melt and burn.

Any heat approaching the cure temperature of the composite will weaken the composite structure in the area of the cut. You don't want weak structure where you have just put a hole (even if you are putting in a doubler).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 133):
High-pressure water jets would be best, I would think, but can't be used in the field,

Yep   because the abbrasive additive they add to the water would contaminate the heck out of everything if you don't give it a complete wash down.

bt

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KELPkid
Posted 2013-04-09 08:24:50 and read 19791 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 131):
- Crew currency

Supposedly, the 787 and 777 share a common type rating (which I really don't agree with, but that's beside the point). Wonder how many 787 crews are doing 777 rotations?  

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2013-04-09 08:46:17 and read 19712 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 133):
and carbon fibers.

Come to think of it, can you cut a carbon fiber with a laser in the first place?

bt

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-04-09 09:32:34 and read 19594 times.

Home Deport has some excellent hole saws in diameters up to 5 inches.. so why not just use one?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-04-09 10:41:15 and read 19504 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 107):
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 106):
We can safely assume that once Boeing settled on the fix, they've been running battery charge/discharge tests on their ground based test bed 24/7. They've also likely pushed the battery beyond what the new settings would be and deliberately pushed the battery into various failure modes to demonstrate the new standards in both the insulation, charging/discharging and containment (as we've seen from the Boeing video).

They should be on the last round of testing and then the FAA will weigh in as to whether they want/need/require more testing overall or to set up specific testing targeting a particular area for the FAA.

Once that is done, the FAA publishes its new directive and Boeing implements it ASAP.

Nope, we can't assume any of that.

I am an engineer, and I do not believe any engineer in their right mind would design something like this without running that test. Unless someone was pointing a gun at their heads, I think we *can* safely assume they have been running this and many other tests in the ground.

Quoting humanitarian (Reply 123):
"Boeing has "good" 787 battery plan fix: official"

Great news! Wishing good progress for getting the issue to its final resolution and the planes back in the air!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 126):
According to this story the flight was 'straightforward and uneventful.'

I was kind of hoping for an airborne test of a burning battery, but that seems to indicate we did not get that.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-09 10:42:48 and read 19478 times.

ZA005 is in the air.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/B...5/history/20130409/1630Z/KBFI/KBFI

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: discovery1
Posted 2013-04-09 10:58:43 and read 19411 times.

United is planning on having their birds flying on the 31st:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...on-may-31-20130408,0,7389846.story

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: twiga
Posted 2013-04-09 13:21:31 and read 19128 times.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 136):
Come to think of it, can you cut a carbon fiber with a laser in the first place?
Quoting kanban (Reply 137):
Home Deport has some excellent hole saws in diameters up to 5 inches.. so why not just use one?

From what little I know about cutting CFRP from a hobbiest point of view, which might have some bearing on how they may go about making these holes. Don't know about a laser. I think the heat would melt the resin/ epoxy at the cut face and additional filing/ sanding would be required to finish the cut edge. When using power tools they would either use a tungsten carbide or diamond grit bit and under cut the edge by say 1 to 2 mm because the heat from cutting dry would melt the epoxy/ resin. (cutting wet for a retrofit may or may not be practicle). If cut dry they would finish to final dimension by either filing or sanding, and the edges would be sealed/ treated with resin/ epoxy. If a fine hand saw was used it would likely cause more edge delam and therefore require more undercutting, filing/ sanding. The dust from dry cutting carbon fiber is extremely dangerous for the lungs. Strips of CFRP 1/16 inch thick can be cut on a table saw with a diamond grit blade - overcut in this case and again finished to final dimension by filing or sanding. Obviously Boeing have standardized procedures and probably specialized tooling for this. Anyway youv'e got my two bits worth.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KELPkid
Posted 2013-04-09 17:08:32 and read 18815 times.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 138):
I was kind of hoping for an airborne test of a burning battery, but that seems to indicate we did not get that.

According to All things 787 (here: http://nyc787.blogspot.com/), there was a ground test of an actual fully charged battery being shorted out, and forced to enter thermal runaway in LN/5 (N787FT). On the ground is actually a worst-case scenario, as when airborne pressure differential helps to evacuate the E&E compartments   This is why the damage was much worse in the JL incident than the NH incident.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KELPkid
Posted 2013-04-09 17:11:01 and read 18776 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 139):
ZA005 is in the air.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/B.../KBFI

I doubt, though, that the the flying that ZA005 is doing right now has anything to do with battery testing, as many people involved have said that the all the flying needed for the battery work has been done. ZA005 had been doing flight testing of various 787-900 components before the battery problems arose...  

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: twiga
Posted 2013-04-09 20:31:23 and read 18570 times.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 138):
I was kind of hoping for an airborne test of a burning battery, but that seems to indicate we did not get that.

I agree and was hoping for the same. I know this is a contraversial topic. I suggested or alluded to this further back in a post, and safety of the test crew was raised. Also the example of ground testing for containment of a broken fan blade was given. In my opinion this broken fan blade testing is a little different because there could be some ubpredictable or unknown consequences since inflight you would have the additional force of 580 mph air velocity to contend with, and I don't know whether or not they do these tests in a wind tunnel. Besides something that is rotating at 10,000 rpm or whatever is a little unpredictable even with the safety shield. I can think of more reasons than not to do inflight tests for a burning battery.

1) From a strength of materials perspective the new containment vessel is at least 6 to 10 times stronger than the origional blue box, that many of or at least some of the posters thought worked, even though NTSB and FAA obviously didn't. Besides the vent tube improves the safety of pressures and temperature/ heat by at least another x 10 or 100 on the ground and x 100 or 1,000 or whatever in the air, and with the battery improvements, particulary the cell to cell insulation the safety is further improved. The regulators are probably looking for that combined improvement number of 1:10^7 hr. or whatever the number is . So I don't see inflight safety testing being a risk issue any more than driving to work.

2) Here we are engineering for a known, measurable and predictable condition, no different than the fire and heat coming from the APU. If you don't trust the engineering then there are about a million other things you should be worried about on the airplane.

3) The inflight testing could be done with monitoring and within 20 minutes of landing. Far better than to have something go awry mid pacific with a load of passengers.

4) If for no other reason than from a public and PR perspective wouldn't this instill confidence in the design of the new system. Isn't it far better to say, it was tested in flight, where most peoples concerns are, than to just say "trust us" and our lab and ground testing. Isn't it possible this is sending the subtle message "it's too risky to test inflight". Because after all I'm sure cost is not the issue, when it's reportedly costing Boeing $50 m/ week while grounded.

Anyway these are my thoughts on the subject, and I'm sure that some others may have similar thoughts or perhaps not. Granted it's contraversial.   

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-04-10 03:00:42 and read 18176 times.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
Anyway these are my thoughts on the subject, and I'm sure that some others may have similar thoughts or perhaps not. Granted it's contraversial.

Your points made a lot of sense to me.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Aquila3
Posted 2013-04-10 03:14:17 and read 18147 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 137):
Home Deport has some excellent hole saws in diameters up to 5 inches.. so why not just use one?

Yeah, I believe Home Depot is already in the official list of approved suppliers for the 787 program...
 

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: ServantLeader
Posted 2013-04-10 06:57:18 and read 17859 times.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
If for no other reason than from a public and PR perspective wouldn't this instill confidence in the design of the new system.

Boeing doesn't bother with crisis management PR, preferring instead to bank on their industry reputation -- this is a risky strategy as that account is already dangerously low.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-10 07:12:33 and read 17847 times.

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 147):
Boeing doesn't bother with crisis management PR, preferring instead to bank on their industry reputation -- this is a risky strategy as that account is already dangerously low.

Yes, their sales sure are in the toilet the past 15 months... Oh, wait...

Seriously, Boeing is about as "doomed" as Apple is.  

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-04-10 13:47:30 and read 17511 times.

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 147):
Boeing doesn't bother with crisis management PR, preferring instead to bank on their industry reputation -- this is a risky strategy as that account is already dangerously low.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 148):
Yes, their sales sure are in the toilet the past 15 months... Oh, wait...

Seriously, Boeing is about as "doomed" as Apple is.

Don't think anyone is saying Boeing is doomed. But there is no doubt its reputation in the industry is lower than its ever been in its history. It is "dangerously low", but not yet doomed. Doomed is when sales would dry up.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-10 13:49:22 and read 17528 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 149):
But there is no doubt its reputation in the industry is lower than its ever been in its history.

And yet airlines clamor for them to launch the 737 MAX, the 787-10, and the 777X...  

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-04-10 14:31:28 and read 17428 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 149):
Don't think anyone is saying Boeing is doomed. But there is no doubt its reputation in the industry is lower than its ever been in its history. It is "dangerously low", but not yet doomed. Doomed is when sales would dry up.

Was Airbus doomed when the Qantas engine came apart and only through the expertise of 5 or 6 pilots doing a 2 pilot job the loss of several hundred lives was averted? Did everybody stop buying RR engines? Does everybody think their reputations are now shot? Ludicris comment/idea.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-04-10 17:19:10 and read 17416 times.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
The inflight testing could be done with monitoring and within 20 minutes of landing. Far better than to have something go awry mid pacific with a load of passengers.

Purposely incinerating a battery while the plane is orbiting Puget Sound is not going to guarantee that nothing will ever happen over the middle of the Pacific. What you want is to demonstrate that if a battery fries over the Pacific safe flight is not compromised. Ground testing is adequate to demonstrate that.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
Isn't it far better to say, it was tested in flight, where most peoples concerns are, than to just say "trust us" and our lab and ground testing.

Actually, Boeing has tested the battery in flight. Nothing went wrong. That's what everybody wants to see. It's like testing, say, the engines in flight. They work fine and everybody's happy. They fail and you got problems.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: rcair1
Posted 2013-04-11 06:44:26 and read 16844 times.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
I agree and was hoping for the same.

Why? What do you learn from an in-air test.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
and I don't know whether or not they do these tests in a wind tunnel.

They do not. In fact, your point that the dynamics of a blade off event are different in flight is an argument that they should do that test in flight. That same difference in dynamics does not exist for the battery. What, precisely, is the difference in the conditions the battery faces in flight as compared to on the ground.

The aircraft is full of components that are tested on the ground and not inflight.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
I can think of more reasons than not to do inflight tests for a burning battery.

What are they? The only one I've heard is PR.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
least another x 10 or 100 on the ground and x 100 or 1,000 or whatever in the air,

Huh - why is the new design safer in the air than on the ground. Are you alluding to the fact that, on the ground, shut down, the smoke evacuation system is not working? With the new design that should not be an issue. And where to you come up with 10, 100 and 1000, or 10^7.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
So I don't see inflight safety testing being a risk issue any more than driving to work.

Again - not why not, but why? What do you learn.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
2) Here we are engineering for a known, measurable and predictable condition, no different than the fire and heat coming from the APU. If you don't trust the engineering then there are about a million other things you should be worried about on the airplane.

This is why you don't need to do the flight test.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
3) The inflight testing could be done with monitoring and within 20 minutes of landing. Far better than to have something go awry mid pacific with a load of passengers.

I'd much rather test on the ground where I can instrument and measure and observe much more readily.

Testing in flight makes sense if there is some "in flight factor" that cannot be simulated on the ground. There is none.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
Isn't it far better to say, it was tested in flight, where most peoples concerns are, than to just say "trust us" and our lab and ground testing

Testing in flight would clearly be done for PR reasons. Then the Boeing haters (many here) would lambast Boeing for staging a PR stunt that proves nothing. I'm not saying you are one of those - but they are here.

Ultimately - if there was a factor that could not be simulated on the ground, then you'd need to do in-air tests. Anybody know of one? Perhaps turbulence? In fact, you could do that better on the ground on a shake table than by drilling holes in the sky trying to find just the right 'rough spot'. Partial power failure? You can simulate ALL the conditions on the ground with far more authority and repeatability.

Testing is about gathering data and proving design. Do that in the environment that gets you the most data in the most reliable and repeatable manner. In this case, in air testing adds nothing to the equation.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2013-04-11 07:10:53 and read 16753 times.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):

4) If for no other reason than from a public and PR perspective wouldn't this instill confidence in the design of the new system. Isn't it far better to say, it was tested in flight, where most peoples concerns are, than to just say "trust us" and our lab and ground testing. Isn't it possible this is sending the subtle message "it's too risky to test inflight".

I think I know what you are trying to say. I think some here just take it the wrong way.

True, flight testing is mostly show and tell and a final feel good for the FAA and the public.

Many in the public don't realize that in a ground test you can subject the test to much more vicious environmental condition than you could in the air without endangering the airplane.

So to make everyone happy, you have to do both.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 153):
Testing in flight makes sense if there is some "in flight factor" that cannot be simulated on the ground. There is none.

Yes, there is one . . . the every present uncertainty principle   Flight testing don't get rid of it completely, but it does make you feel a tiny bit less uncertaint.   

bt

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-04-11 07:29:01 and read 16703 times.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 154):
True, flight testing is mostly show and tell and a final feel good for the FAA and the public.

If you're talking about flight testing in general then you are dead wrong. If you're talking about purposely burning up a 787 battery during a flight test for "a final feel good for the FAA and the public," you have to keep in mind that flight test is a serious business. No professional flight test operation would consider doing it just for show, and no responsible certificating authority would ever ask them to.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-04-11 08:29:14 and read 16588 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 150):
Quoting sankaps (Reply 149):But there is no doubt its reputation in the industry is lower than its ever been in its history. And yet airlines clamor for them to launch the 737 MAX, the 787-10, and the 777X...
Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 151):
Was Airbus doomed when the Qantas engine came apart and only through the expertise of 5 or 6 pilots doing a 2 pilot job the loss of several hundred lives was averted? Did everybody stop buying RR engines? Does everybody think their reputations are now shot? Ludicris comment/idea.

No. If you read my post carefully, you will see I wrote that while its reputation is hurt, Boeing is NOT doomed, and therefore orders would NOT dry up. Nothing ludicrous about it.

Would anyone seriously want to argue that Boeing's reputation has not taken a hit from the 787 program problems?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: nomadd22
Posted 2013-04-11 08:35:12 and read 16575 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 156):
Would anyone seriously want to argue that Boeing's reputation has not taken a hit from the 787 program problems?

Why would someone insist on posting the same crap that's been going on for 2,000 posts?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-04-11 09:00:58 and read 16515 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 153):
Ultimately - if there was a factor that could not be simulated on the ground, then you'd need to do in-air tests. Anybody know of one? Perhaps turbulence?

The unknown unknown. A lot gets tested in the air, too, and one of the benefits of that is that you put the object under test into its normal situation in how the aircraft is used. In some cases an unexpected interaction comes up. In other cases it does not - flight testing cannot execute the kind of extreme vibration or long-duration conditions that are much more easily tested in the ground. I do agree that for the battery test, ground testing is probably the sensible engineering thing to do. But I would definitely stop short of claiming that flight testing the battery would only have PR value.

Ok, Ok, I confess. I wanted to see the flight test for the excitement value, and for the possibility that there'd be visible smoke, a last minute save by the pilots and a safe landing. After all, I think this thread series is not long enough, I would enjoy at least a dozen more threads.

Just kidding. I think flight testing would have provided a little bit of incremental assurance that the new system works, but I'm fine without it as well. Hoping for an FAA approval and a quick return of the plane into commercial service!

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: ServantLeader
Posted 2013-04-11 09:40:58 and read 16470 times.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 157):
Why would someone insist on posting the same crap that's been going on for 2,000 posts?

Please note that this thread is entitled "FAA Grounds B787", not “Viva la Boeing 787”. By what rationale do you find postings regarding how this event has impacted Boeing's industry reputation to be immaterial / superfluous Boeing-hating drivel?

[Edited 2013-04-11 09:41:26]

[Edited 2013-04-11 09:46:50]

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-11 09:58:12 and read 16418 times.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 158):
I wanted to see the flight test for the excitement value, and for the possibility that there'd be visible smoke, a last minute save by the pilots and a safe landing.

I would expect there was plenty of smoke vented out of the plane since testing the evacuation system seems to me to be one of the main reasons to perform a flight test.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-04-11 13:36:25 and read 16002 times.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 157):
Why would someone insist on posting the same crap that's been going on for 2,000 posts?

Because some people keep arguing that this "crap" is not in fact a reality.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: art
Posted 2013-04-11 15:46:02 and read 15804 times.

Qatar Airways plans to seek compensation from Boeing over the grounding of its 787s, even as the airline remains "optimistic" that the twinjet will be cleared to fly soon.

"I will not be honest if I say we will not take any compensation from Boeing. We will," says the carrier's chief executive Akbar Al Baker today at an event in Chicago marking the airline's inaugural flight to the city on 10 April.

"What will be the compensation? What will be the size, I rather not discuss this in public," he adds.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...m-boeing-for-787-grounding-384574/

Rather low key for AAB, isn't it?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-04-11 15:53:47 and read 15786 times.

Quoting art (Reply 162):
Rather low key for AAB, isn't it?

Discussions have already taken place, count on it. Qatar is also sorting through ordering additional Boeing a/c so the "compensation" can take the form of reductions in deposits and/or price of future a/c. As they say, "everything is negotiable."

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: twiga
Posted 2013-04-11 16:01:12 and read 15752 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 160):
I would expect there was plenty of smoke vented out of the plane since testing the evacuation system seems to me to be one of the main reasons to perform a flight test.

Not quite clear what you mean by 'evacuation system' initially thought about deplaning people but now think you mean 'venting system'. The former could relate to location of vent pipe adjacent to deplaning shutes and bad stuff coming out next to them.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: rcair1
Posted 2013-04-11 16:47:02 and read 15691 times.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 158):
The unknown unknown.

Ahh - and there lies the path to infinite test cycles.  
Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 158):
Ok, Ok, I confess. I wanted to see the flight test for the excitement value, and for the possibility that there'd be visible smoke, a last minute save by the pilots and a safe landing. After all, I think this thread series is not long enough, I would enjoy at least a dozen more threads.

Okay - that is the best justification I've heard.   

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 159):
Please note that this thread is entitled "FAA Grounds B787", not “Viva la Boeing 787”. By what rationale do you find postings regarding how this event has impacted Boeing's industry reputation to be immaterial / superfluous Boeing-hating drivel?

Please show me the data where Boeing has taken an industry reputation hit. Surveys, cancellations (related to the grounding) - even stock price - which had been largely flat. Boeing has certainly taken a financial hit - but I'm not seeing a bunch of customers saying "Boeing really sucks."

Yes - a Japanese customer who is all Boeing has said "I'm not sure single supplier makes sense" - but that was brewing before this. In fact, it is silly to think it is related because even if they had 2 suppliers, in this industry it is not like you can 'switch orders' quickly - fulfillment time is much too long. In fact, the argument would have to be - don't have too many of any single model of aircraft because if there is a problem with that a/c you are less impacted. While there is validity to that argument - it is not related to reputation but to risk management - and applies equally to all manfs. Or are you implying that AB or Bombardier or Embraer or (fill in the blank) are fundamentally "better" than Boeing as an a/c designer. If so - I would have to disagree. All these companies have had their successes and failures.

History is replete with cases of product failure where the company reacted well and fixed it - and the net, net was positive. We don't know where that will end up in this case. If the a/c performs well - this will all become a hazy memory. While there are plenty here who will jump in an criticize how Boeing handled this - most of those are, frankly, just thinking they have a better way and are mad that Boeing did not give pay attention to them and give them all they want.

If you want to talk about reputation hits - I think the delays in the 787 program are far worse than the battery problem.

Ultimately - the 787 suffered a problem related to a battery design issue. The issue never caused any significant damage, injuries or death (unlike some others). They proposed a fix that looks to be good - and are beating the timeframe of many of the naysayers in getting into the air. Would it have been better if they never had the problem - sure. Is there damage to their rep- not so sure. Compare this to the rework/repair on the A380. There is far more rework needed there - yet I would argue that AB has not suffered any reputation hit at all (nor should they).

Quoting sankaps (Reply 161):
Because some people keep arguing that this "crap" is not in fact a reality.

One man's crap is another man's fertilizer... I'm not sure what the heck that means but that most of the crap here is not related to a battery failure in an airplane...   

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-11 17:27:25 and read 15648 times.

Quoting art (Reply 162):
Qatar Airways plans to seek compensation from Boeing over the grounding of its 787s, even as the airline remains "optimistic" that the twinjet will be cleared to fly soon.

"What will be the compensation? What will be the size, I rather not discuss this in public," AAB adds.

Another 777X launch customer?

[Edited 2013-04-11 17:29:59]

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-04-11 17:58:03 and read 15534 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 165):
Please show me the data where Boeing has taken an industry reputation hit. Surveys, cancellations (related to the grounding) - even stock price - which had been largely flat. Boeing has certainly taken a financial hit - but I'm not seeing a bunch of customers saying "Boeing really sucks."

It's reputation will have taken a hit. Airlines want at least a duopoly, they would hate to have only Airbus or Beoing to go to for the planes, both companies make competitive products. Boeing's reputation will have taken a hit, it is unavoidable with the delays then the grounding.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: rcair1
Posted 2013-04-11 19:39:53 and read 15376 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 167):
It's reputation will have taken a hit.

Okay- so we have an opinion, not data. That's fine, but recognize it as what it is - opinion.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 167):
Airlines want at least a duopoly, they would hate to have only Airbus or Beoing to go to for the planes, both companies make competitive products. Boeing's reputation will have taken a hit, it is unavoidable with the delays then the grounding.

  I'm afraid I don't follow this train of thought - as in I don't understand what you are saying here. What does "airlines want at least a duopoly" have to do with either of their (Airbus's or Boeing's) reputation? I really, truly, do not understand what you are getting at. If airlines want a duopoly, it seems they would be more likely NOT to worry about things like this if the company in question handles it well.

My opinion - Boeing's rep has not taken a hit - for the battery problem. It has, probably, for delays.
Similarly, Airbus rep has not taken a hit for the A380 wing foot cracks. But it has, probably, for the A400.

Opinion - I've no data to back it.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-04-11 19:58:54 and read 15337 times.

I am saying that Boeings share price won't be hit hard, it has a guaranteed market, it has competitive products to sell. The grounding for this length of time will harm it's reputation. There has already been a topic about rusted on Japanese customers looking to buy Airbus now.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: rcair1
Posted 2013-04-11 20:03:09 and read 15376 times.

This might be of interest to people who have been following the B787 battery issues.

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2013/batteryforum/index.html

Forum - Lithium Ion Batteries in Transportation
On Thursday and Friday, April 11-12, 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will convene a forum titled, "Lithium Ion Batteries in Transportation." The forum is free and open to the public. No registration is required.

The forum will be held in the NTSB Board Room and Conference Center, located at 429 L'Enfant Plaza E., S.W., Washington, DC. The public can view the forum in person or by live webcast. Webcast archives are generally available by the end of the next day following the forum, and Webcasts are archived for a period of 3 months from after the date of the event.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: bellancacf
Posted 2013-04-11 20:57:02 and read 15273 times.

I don't know whether this might be worth a thread, but I've wondered what effect the need to enclose Li batteries in steel will have on the SUGARVolt project. Is this knocking the idea of an electric plane on the head? If Musk is shooting Li batteries into space, has he found the way to go for future planes, too? Thoughts?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2013-04-11 21:29:21 and read 15275 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 166):
Quoting art (Reply 162):
Qatar Airways plans to seek compensation from Boeing over the grounding of its 787s, even as the airline remains "optimistic" that the twinjet will be cleared to fly soon.

"What will be the compensation? What will be the size, I rather not discuss this in public," AAB adds.

Another 777X launch customer?

AAB: Dreamliner is POS, I want my money NOW!
Boeing: Al, we have this great plane we know you want, it's called 777-9x....
AAB: Really? I still want my money NOW!
Boeing: ...Tim Clark is buying 50 of these...
AAB: Oh, really?
Boeing: Really.
AAB: I STILL want my MONEY NOW!!!!
Boeing: Al, for 777-9x we'll give you 50% off list plus another 10%off launch customer discount plus another 10% off for keeping your mouth shut, how's that?
AAB: OK, sign me up for 50 of those new 777s, too.
Boeing: Sign here... and here... and here... and here... and here...

[Edited 2013-04-11 21:31:07]

[Edited 2013-04-11 21:32:18]

[Edited 2013-04-11 21:39:21]

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-04-11 23:01:09 and read 15090 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 169):
There has already been a topic about rusted on Japanese customers looking to buy Airbus now.

That's true, but there's no evidence to suggest that this is a direct consequence of the 787 grounding.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-04-12 01:09:06 and read 14886 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 165):
If you want to talk about reputation hits - I think the delays in the 787 program are far worse than the battery problem.

Indeed the point people like me are making is that Boeing has suffered a reputation hit from the 787 program overall, of which this battery-related grounding is the latest in a series of delays and complications.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 168):
Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 167):It's reputation will have taken a hit.
Okay- so we have an opinion, not data. That's fine, but recognize it as what it is - opinion.

Reputation hit is subjective... no stock market ticker tracks it. It is gauged from conversations with industry insiders (esp in senior management) who, despite still not giving up on Boeing (that would clearly be a silly thing to do, given the many excellent aircraft Boeing has made and continues to make), are concerned about the way the 787 program has been handled, and are therefore going to take Boeing's assurances about it and any new program with more of a pinch of salt than before.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: twiga
Posted 2013-04-12 01:45:01 and read 14787 times.

First of all I must thank you for the very interesting and informative posts you did on the 787 electrical system, it was a real education for me. In posting this topic I knew it was contraversial but there is nothing wrong with a good healthy debate. In many of these items there is no right or wrong answer as some of the posters expect, its often a matter of giving opinions on different shades of grey based on different experiences and perspectives.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 153):
Huh - why is the new design safer in the air than on the ground. Are you alluding to the fact that, on the ground, shut down, the smoke evacuation system is not working? With the new design that should not be an issue. And where to you come up with 10, 100 and 1000, or 10^7.

In answer to the first part of your quote please see my answer below previously provided on another thread that seemed to have died a while back and you may have missed it. With regard to your last sentence and the numbers, I wasn't trying thread the needle here or being pretentious, I was simply trying to get across that statistical metrics whatever they were, would be different for 'on the ground' and 'inflight'. I would think this would be an important metric since there seems to be more concern with inflight conditions than on the ground - ETOPS for one. Isn't an airplane full of passengers in the air about 10 times more than it's on the ground at least for intercontinental travel?

Quoting twiga (Reply 61): One of the reasons I was asking was because the venting system pressure operation is different for ground and air operations.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 62): In what way? In both cases the over pressure in the containment vessel (due to a battery failure) blows out the rupture disc and everything goes overboard. In flight the pressure differential continues to suck any leftover stuff out of the airplane and on the ground it doesn't really matter.

Quoting twiga (Reply 63): I agree the disc will rupture in the air (1) as it will on the ground (2). But there are differences and I was thinking about the 'venting system' as a whole including the containment vessel and the thermal effects. Assuming they set the disc to rupture at say a pressure differential of 16 psi so it does't rupture every time the airpIane goes up and down due to pressure differences with altitude. And assuming the containment vessel was sealed at sea level with atmospheric pressure at 14.7 psi.

(1) at 40,000 ft (atmospheric pressure 3.7 psi). After disc rupture the high pressure differential (11 psi ) X psi from ongoing battery chemistry (hopefully from only one cell because of extra insulation, but in any case a slow down in runaway from one cell to the next compared to before battery changes) will rapidly suck out the hot gases and heat and maintain manageable temperatures at the containment vessel and surrounding EE bay from the ongoing chemical reaction. Likened to a garden hose flowing full bore.

(2) at ground/ sea level (atmospheric pressure 14.7 psi). After disc rupture the low pressure differential with only X psi from ongoing battery chemistry the rate of venting hot gases and heat will be alot slower than in (1). Likened to a kinked garden hose. Obviously this is the worse case sceneario for getting rid of heat and gases and will place more reliance on the design and the heat sink capacity of the new containment vessel and hence thermal effects to adjacent things in the EE bay, which is now the main concern .

To sum up I think it does matter at ground level for the design of the system for the worse case sceneario, and to the regulators in the event you were loading or unloading passengers if things went awry with the battery. I would think the regulators would want to know the test results from both cases. Hence the origional question about inflight testing (isn't that why Test Pilots get paid the big bucks - just kidding nobody expects anyone to take undue risks) or testing in a sophisticated lab that can replicate flight. Anyhow, I'm not an expert in these things and you have my opinion.


Quoting rcair1 (Reply 153):
That same difference in dynamics does not exist for the battery. What, precisely, is the difference in the conditions the battery faces in flight as compared to on the ground.

The battery function persay (except for purposely burning it in flight) is not the issue here and besides I am sure they have well tested the modified battery inflight - charge/ discharge/ cell voltages and temps etc. We are discussing the containment vessel and venting system since this more than anything is what will get Boeing flying again. Hopefully their shotgun approach to the battery will nail the root cause and solve that problem as well.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 153):
Testing in flight would clearly be done for PR reasons. Then the Boeing haters (many here) would lambast Boeing for staging a PR stunt that proves nothing. I'm not saying you are one of those - but they are here.

I think the PR would be good for the reasons I previously gave. As far as the press and reporters go, if inflight testing is not done it will leave this avenue open for them - so wouldn't it be wise to shut this door for good? Can't you see them saying why should we trust them this time around, look what happened last time with all their lab testing and black box answers? Why should we trust their engineering, when their own flight test crew are too scared to do a real flight simulation test. I know these are nasty questions that some may not like, but we can't just put our heads in the sand and pretend Joe Public and Reporters won't think or ask them. Having some understanding of the engineering principles involved, I for one wouldn't hesitate to jump aboard for an inflight adventure. Its probably safer than driving to work. As far as PR goes. With inflight test would public confidence tend to improve, get worse or stay the same? Would the stock price tend to go up, down or stay the same. Remember the general flock (Joe Public) doesn't have our understanding of engineering principals involved and therefore the same trust factor.

As far as the Boeing haters go - well nothing will satisfy them regardless of what you do. I have tried to be non-biased in my posts, but have spoken my mind as I see it. If anything I am slightly biased to Boeing perhaps because I live less than 100 miles from their plant and I'm sure thousands of their workers spend their money across the border in Canada. Thats good enough reason for me.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 153):
Testing is about gathering data and proving design. Do that in the environment that gets you the most data in the most reliable and repeatable manner. In this case, in air testing adds nothing to the equation.

I agree with doing all the tests you can in the lab and on the ground. However as in my previously quoted post listed above there are two distinctively different cases for 'on the ground' and 'inflight' and the test results will be different after the disc ruptures for: pressure and temperature of the containment vessel and more importantly heat transfer and thermal gradient to perishables like bundles of electrical cables etc in close proximity to the battery in the EE bay's - all things easily measurable. I would think they would want to know what these numbers and differences are. I would also think they would want to know what the statistical metrics are for these two different cases. Because isn't this the way they certify things for safety in the aircraft industry ( 1:10^ 6 or 7 or whatever they use) and besides 'on the ground' numbers wouldn't have much relavence for ETOPS. There is one other item that comes to mind and that is the outside air temperature where the vent tube discharges the electrolyte gases. Its a 1 inch diam. tube - question, is it possible that some of these vent gases could start to freeze and solidify at the outlet of the discharge pipe thus causing blockage? I don't know but someone said there are possibly unknown unknowns.

Now having been around for awhile you might know more about this than me. If Boeing could simulate in a mock up, the inflight conditions with pressure differences and cold effects that I mentioned, then there would be no clear reason to fly test other than PR.

Quoting hivue (Reply 152):
Quoting twiga (Reply 144): The inflight testing could be done with monitoring and within 20 minutes of landing. Far better than to have something go awry mid pacific with a load of passengers.

Purposely incinerating a battery while the plane is orbiting Puget Sound is not going to guarantee that nothing will ever happen over the middle of the Pacific. What you want is to demonstrate that if a battery fries over the Pacific safe flight is not compromised. Ground testing is adequate to demonstrate that.


I think you missed my point. They could fly circles for all I care to get in 2 or 3 hrs after they toast the battery - the point is stay close to home (20 min) in case things go awry and have to land. I respect your opinion on ground testing only but obviously have a different opinion.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144): Isn't it far better to say, it was tested in flight, where most peoples concerns are, than to just say "trust us" and our lab and ground testing.
Actually, Boeing has tested the battery in flight. Nothing went wrong. That's what everybody wants to see. It's like testing, say, the engines in flight. They work fine and everybody's happy. They fail and you got problems.

I think you know the context of discussion was about a "burning" battery test. Of course they have carried out all the basic inflight tests I think youre trying to bate me!   

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: ServantLeader
Posted 2013-04-12 06:28:19 and read 14530 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 165):
Please show me the data where Boeing has taken an industry reputation hit.

The impact of 4 years of delays and counting on the 787 program is going to leave a mark; and it has presented a very real opportunity cost by souring customer relationships, rubbing oversight bodies the wrong way, and letting Airbus back in the game. This is not just an opinion, it is a self-evident fact. Boeing may very well recover in time to make this all moot -- but IMHO, they do not have the leadership talent to get this done.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-12 06:33:39 and read 14735 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 169):
There has already been a topic about rusted on Japanese customers looking to buy Airbus now.

JAL has been looking at the A350 since 2008, back when the 787 program was still believed to be relatively on track. The plain fact - even the plane fact - is that the A350-1000 is a really good replacement for the 777-300ER for both JL and NH because they fly such low-density layouts. The 777-9X is going to be too large for JL, so the decision is going to come down between the A350-1000, the 777-8 and (perhaps) the 787-10.



Quoting twiga (Reply 175):
If Boeing could simulate in a mock up, the inflight conditions with pressure differences and cold effects that I mentioned, then there would be no clear reason to fly test other than PR.

I would expect that pressure chambers large enough for the battery, if not a section of the EE bay itself, exist to allow such testing.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-04-12 08:22:16 and read 14512 times.

Quoting twiga (Reply 175):
I think you know the context of discussion was about a "burning" battery test. Of course they have carried out all the basic inflight tests I think youre trying to bate me!

Sorry, my bad. That was not my intent. I hate baiting as much as you do.

Quoting twiga (Reply 175):
They could fly circles for all I care to get in 2 or 3 hrs after they toast the battery - the point is stay close to home (20 min) in case things go awry and have to land.
Quoting twiga (Reply 175):
Why should we trust their engineering, when their own flight test crew are too scared to do a real flight simulation test

So why not purposely burn up the battery in the middle of a test flight across the Pacific instead of a wimpy 20 min from the airport?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: PanAm788
Posted 2013-04-12 08:30:51 and read 14488 times.

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 176):

   We should start another thread titled "What if the 787 was on time/under budget?" Think of all the projects they would have a head start on. MAX could be flying and 777X could be right on the horizon. Airbus gave them a tremendous opportunity with the initial A350 debacle and I'm afraid they've wasted it.

On a sidenote, as another poster commented, Boeing's stock has been doing very well, hitting 5yr highs despite the company's supposed mess ups. Maybe Wall Street knows something we don't...

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-12 09:36:04 and read 14349 times.

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 176):
This is not just an opinion, it is a self-evident fact.

"Fact n A thing that is proved to be true; the truth about events as opposed to interpretation"

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: twiga
Posted 2013-04-12 11:01:25 and read 14158 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 177):
Quoting twiga (Reply 175):If Boeing could simulate in a mock up, the inflight conditions with pressure differences and cold effects that I mentioned, then there would be no clear reason to fly test other than PR.
I would expect that pressure chambers large enough for the battery, if not a section of the EE bay itself, exist to allow such testing.

Thanks Stitch. If thats fact, then I rest my case other than for PR reasons, and we could debate that until the cows come home. By the way I have appreciated your very informative posts - in my case they have been very educative - thanks.

Quoting hivue (Reply 178):
Quoting twiga (Reply 175):I think you know the context of discussion was about a "burning" battery test. Of course they have carried out all the basic inflight tests I think youre trying to bate me!
Sorry, my bad. That was not my intent. I hate baiting as much as you do.

No apologies required. There is a 'bater' and a 'batee' all we have to do is figure out the ownership!   

Quoting hivue (Reply 178):
So why not purposely burn up the battery in the middle of a test flight across the Pacific instead of a wimpy 20 min from the airport?

I agree - but was trying to sooth the non-risk takers.   

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: cornutt
Posted 2013-04-12 16:04:29 and read 13846 times.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 172):
Boeing: Sign here... and here... and here... and here... and here...

I LOL'ed, but...   

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-04-12 16:37:59 and read 13760 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 177):
JAL has been looking at the A350 since 2008, back when the 787 program was still believed to be relatively on track. The plain fact - even the plane fact - is that the A350-1000 is a really good replacement for the 777-300ER for both JL and NH because they fly such low-density layouts. The 777-9X is going to be too large for JL, so the decision is going to come down between the A350-1000, the 777-8 and (perhaps) the 787-10.

I stand corrected.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: aklrno
Posted 2013-04-12 16:40:35 and read 13768 times.

Quoting hivue (Reply 178):
So why not purposely burn up the battery in the middle of a test flight across the Pacific instead of a wimpy 20 min from the airport?

If you really want all tests done airborne, then how about the wing load test? Set up some test flight scenario to load the wing to 150% of max design load and see if they snap off. If you can't find a crew willing to try that then I guess some tests could be done on the ground.

Ground testing allows you to set up tests that are far too risky to do in the air.

I'm perfectly happy to fly in an airplane whose wings were tested on the ground. I can live with a battery tested on the ground too.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: rcair1
Posted 2013-04-12 16:58:21 and read 13733 times.

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 176):
This is not just an opinion, it is a self-evident fact.

Sorry - saying something over and over again does not make it factual - despite the fact that politicians seem to thrive on it.
You talk about opportunity cost - certainly the delays have had opportunity cost, but because resources that should have been freed up were not - but that is NOT reputation, that is resources.

Just like "common wisdom" is neither common or wise - or often correct.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 180):
"Fact n A thing that is proved to be true; the truth about events as opposed to interpretation"

  

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 176):
but IMHO

I think you mean IMO

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: art
Posted 2013-04-13 04:24:13 and read 13293 times.

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 176):
The impact of 4 years of delays and counting on the 787 program is going to leave a mark

I think it will, as will the A380 delays (production is still way below where it was supposed to be in 2009? IIRC).

These delays have demonstrated that customers cannot plan fleet renewal/expansion with confidence. Had the world banking crisis not depressed the world economy, airlines that had relied on timely 787 and A380 deliveries to meet business plans would be in a still worse position.

If Airbus could get the A350 out of the door without too much delay that would help rebuild some confidence in their reliability to supply new designs without creating big problems for customers. I guess that Boeing will have to achieve delivery of 777-X frames roughly on time to re-establish their credibility.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-04-13 07:36:49 and read 13119 times.

Ok I've been slammed recently and haven't been able to read Airliners....and again, like I've probably said in the last 13 threads, I am really disappointed at how some members are really being unprofessional here. I know this is a mix of both professionals and amateurs here but at the same time we need to remember this is a global community. We need to respect the views of others.

But I really am finding it hard to actually find "news" related to the grounding.

Here's what I know from Japan-

NH will probably start flights from May 31 if the tests go well in the eyes of the regulators

A number of NH planes were moved to a different location at HND in preparation for modifications

The DEN-NRT flight is still set to begin at the end of may or in june

anyone have any pertinent news???

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-04-13 07:50:22 and read 13084 times.

Maybe a dent in short term but when the 787 goes in to mass flight it will speak for itself, often looked over ANA was very very happy with their 787s before this snag hit.

I think some here should tone down their agenda some it is quite clear what you think anyway.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-04-13 08:03:11 and read 13068 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 187):
But I really am finding it hard to actually find "news" related to the grounding.

Not overly surprising, PHX787, since there really isn't any hard news?  

As I see the situation, Boeing reckon that they've done enough checking/modification to justify a 'return to service.' My impression ('impression' only) is that the FAA tends to agree with that, but that the NTSB holds the opposite view; hence their recent and further-planned 'conferences.' So there's quite a lot of politics involved.

The NTSB's recent hearing on the subject was inconclusive, but they have another one scheduled for 23rd. April. My own feeling is that the FAA probably won't authorise any 787 'return to service' until that hearing takes place - but that, unless some really significant additional information emerges from it, the FAA will free the 787 to fly in service very soon afterwards.

So - hopefully - the 787 back in service in early May?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: blueshamu330s
Posted 2013-04-13 08:13:27 and read 13037 times.

I find it interesting that on here, predominantly an enthusiast site, the buzz is about getting the Dreamliner back in the air.

Meanwhile, on that well known Professional Pilots forum that shares rumours and news, talk is considerably more guarded and there is a recurrent element of doubt throughout the current threads that Boeing has done enough.

It will be interesting to look back in the ensuing months and years to see which site was more aligned to reality.

Rgds

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-13 08:28:25 and read 13007 times.

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 190):
Meanwhile, on that well known Professional Pilots forum that shares rumours and news, talk is considerably more guarded and there is a recurrent element of doubt throughout the current threads that Boeing has done enough.

I've been following / participating in those discussions and I find they mirror the ones we have here.

On the Rumors and News forum, it's mostly a couple of people with an axe to grind about Boeing lambasting the company's management and declaring the 787 "unsafe at any altitude".

On the Tech forum, there is some concern about the lNTSB and JTSB not being able to find a root cause as of yet, however the sense I get is that the changes Boeing have made to the battery pack, it's operating regimens, and the containment structure is that all these are positive steps that should reduce the chances of future failures as well as mitigate any dangers from a future failure.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: justloveplanes
Posted 2013-04-13 08:37:42 and read 12994 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 189):
As I see the situation, Boeing reckon that they've done enough checking/modification to justify a 'return to service.' My impression ('impression' only) is that the FAA tends to agree with that, but that the NTSB holds the opposite view; hence their recent and further-planned 'conferences.' So there's quite a lot of politics involved.

There is superficial politics going on. Fact is, Boeing overdesigned their containment for LiIon and I think there are many more issues that are higher risk now (engine shafts, controls software, other electrical issues, fuel lines, etc., etc.) Not that these other issues are unsafe, it's just that battery containment isn't very difficult compared to say, turbine blade containment, and is very well solved right now. System availability is still a possible issue to my mind, but I don't think the NTSB is focusing on that.

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 190):
Meanwhile, on that well known Professional Pilots forum that shares rumours and news, talk is considerably more guarded and there is a recurrent element of doubt throughout the current threads that Boeing has done enough.

Can't see it. Boeing went at this soup to nuts for sure. Battery circuits, production Q/A, limited charging regime, cell isolation (that's the one item I think they could have done better if any) and containment (overdone, which in essence negates any issues with the other items).

[Edited 2013-04-13 08:40:03]

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: NYC777
Posted 2013-04-13 13:37:47 and read 12694 times.

Hearing a RUMOR that the FAA has certified Boeing battery fix. Please note the word rumor, it's not confirmed though I'm trying to confirm it.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: PW100
Posted 2013-04-13 13:45:46 and read 12653 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 191):
On the Rumors and News forum, it's mostly a couple of people with an axe to grind about Boeing lambasting the company's management and declaring the 787 "unsafe at any altitude".

  

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 189):
My impression ('impression' only) is that the FAA tends to agree with that, but that the NTSB holds the opposite view; hence their recent and further-planned 'conferences.' So there's quite a lot of politics involved.

My impression was that they are completely isolated. Not to stir the pot here, so let me explain.
My understanding, and I might very well be wrong, is that Boeings new proposal is going of the assumption that the battery will fail every flight (=thermal runaway), and that they will (have) now show(n) that they managed the affects to the point that it will not compromise safe flight. In order words, a full thermal runaway (single/multiple cells?) will be a non-event as far as flight safety is concerned, just like an engine failure is.

The NTSB hearing is looking how to control the (thermal) stability through design and monitoring, Boeings solution is not looking at that at all. Which may be quite controversial by itself off course . . . .


Rgds,
PW100

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-13 14:41:09 and read 12508 times.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 194):
The NTSB hearing is looking how to control the (thermal) stability through design and monitoring, Boeings solution is not looking at that at all. Which may be quite controversial by itself off course . .

Boeing have very much taken steps to improve the thermal stability of the battery packs - they've added insulation around each cell to help control the transfer of heat from a cell in thermal runaway to adjacent cells, they've reduced the charging envelope even more to reduce the stresses on the cells and they've improved the thermal rating of the plastics to reduce the chance they will catch fire should a connected cell enter thermal runaway.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Navion
Posted 2013-04-13 14:59:22 and read 12458 times.

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 190):
Meanwhile, on that well known Professional Pilots forum that shares rumours and news, talk is considerably more guarded and there is a recurrent element of doubt throughout the current threads that Boeing has done enough.

Being a pilot most of my life and being around professional pilots most of my life I've found that often many of that group promote (at times) wildly inaccurate information. This forum itself has often cited many cases of airline pilot/employee scuttlebutt (rumors) being either wishful thinking or flat out wrong. Professional pilot communities tend to be somewhat "insular" (i.e. they're not exposed to as much outside source or influence for their information) which is often surprising to some of us airliner.net fans. This is not to say pro pilots are always wrong, far from it. But it does go to say they aren't always as well briefed as a group as we would assume and they at times talk a lot even when they themselves haven't been fully briefed on details. I think we naturally give them credit for having insight or inroads into areas we assume they should know about but for one reason or another don't. I personally have had numerous direct experiences talking with pilots of various airlines about equipment they fly, or will acquire and they frequently didn't know the details of the discussion prior to our talk. There are some airline pilot aviation fanatics who stay up to date with aviation happenings but I've not met that many. Finally, I find that pilots with military backgrounds tend to be more familiar with "working out the bugs" on advanced designs (which certainly describes the 787) eventually resulting in reliable long-serving designs. It's part of the learning curve.

That said, I encourage anyone who wants to get out of the speculation game by becoming more informed about the 787 battery issues to check out Aviation Week & Space Technology's various articles on the issue. I for one find Boeing's progress to make sense and I would not have an issue flying on a 787. Quite to the contrary I'm looking forward to it.

Just my two cents worth.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-04-13 15:05:57 and read 12432 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 189):
The NTSB's recent hearing on the subject was inconclusive, but they have another one scheduled for 23rd. April. My own feeling is that the FAA probably won't authorise any 787 'return to service' until that hearing takes place - but that, unless some really significant additional information emerges from it, the FAA will free the 787 to fly in service very soon afterwards.

Since the main topic for the next meeting will relate to design and certification of the battery as well as (I believe) certification in general I don't think the FAA will wait unless they're still processing the paperwork. They know that whatever comes from that meeting won't hit the street for weeks/months--will probably spawn other meetings--and is just a recommendation.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: twiga
Posted 2013-04-13 16:51:55 and read 12279 times.

Quoting aklrno (Reply 184):
Quoting hivue (Reply 178):So why not purposely burn up the battery in the middle of a test flight across the Pacific instead of a wimpy 20 min from the airport?

If you really want all tests done airborne, then how about the wing load test? Set up some test flight scenario to load the wing to 150% of max design load and see if they snap off. If you can't find a crew willing to try that then I guess some tests could be done on the ground.

Nobody said anything about doing "all" tests airborne. Where did you see or get this information? Anyway I think you are a little off beat with this comparison of 'burning battery' versus 'wing load failure' inflight test . It reminds me of pruning a large tree and cutting off the branch youre standing on!   

Quoting aklrno (Reply 184):
Ground testing allows you to set up tests that are far too risky to do in the air.
I'm perfectly happy to fly in an airplane whose wings were tested on the ground. I can live with a battery tested on the ground too.

Agreed you test risky items on the ground where ground simulation tests can reasonably replicate flight conditions. Although I'm not familiar with aircraft inflight tests it wouldn't surprise me if the test pilots tested the wings to some number up to 100% and perhaps even up to 10% more of design loading (any experts know what they actually do?) to develop the maximum safe 'flight performance envelope'.

With regard to the battery test - and I respect your opinion about only ground testing, since many others are of the same opinion. I think it all comes down to not trusting the engineering of the new robust stainless steel vented containment vessel system. Please help me understand because I just don't get it. (1)-On the one hand you trust the engineering of the APU which is inside the fuselage and at 1200 hp puts out at least 100 times more heat, fire and smoke than any little burning battery ever could. (2)-On the other hand you don't trust the engineering of the new containment vessel system, which because of the present issues and implications to Boeing has probably received more attention in engineering than any comparable system on the airplane. Furthermore in (1) this fire and heat happens everytime the airplane flies. Both (1) and (2) would have been engineered to that aircraft statistical metric of 1:10^6 or 7 or whatever they use. As explained previously the ground testing is by far a worse case scenario so what is the risk of a burning battery inflight test. As previously posted, in my opinion there are reasons for inflight tests. I finally rest my case on this matter.   

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-04-13 17:19:26 and read 12229 times.

Quoting twiga (Reply 198):
it wouldn't surprise me if the test pilots tested the wings to some number up to 100% and perhaps even up to 10% more of design loading (any experts know what they actually do?) to develop the maximum safe 'flight performance envelope'.

Well, testing the wing in flight to its max (i.e., 100%) design limits definitely would surprise me. Perhaps you mean the max operating limits?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: aklrno
Posted 2013-04-13 17:43:24 and read 12201 times.

Quoting hivue (Reply 199):
Well, testing the wing in flight to its max (i.e., 100%) design limits definitely would surprise me. Perhaps you mean the max operating limits?

The way I understand it, the max design limit=max operating limit. The wing is then required to show in a static test that it will go to 150% of that max before breaking.

The engineers would like to see it break at 151%. Any higher and they have wasted weight through over designing. I think the 777 wing failed at 154%, and was considered a great success. With margins like that in-flight tests don't happen.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-04-13 18:48:49 and read 12163 times.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 193):
Hearing a RUMOR that the FAA has certified Boeing battery fix. Please note the word rumor, it's not confirmed though I'm trying to confirm it.

Wasn't an announcement expected this week or next week anyway regarding the fix?
Per these articles:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...eing-very-close-to-787-battery-fix
http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...ogy/2020769388_ntsbhersmanxml.html
Also- It's been a while since I've seen you in the forums   

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: twiga
Posted 2013-04-13 20:11:23 and read 12313 times.

Quoting hivue (Reply 199):
Quoting twiga (Reply 198):it wouldn't surprise me if the test pilots tested the wings to some number up to 100% and perhaps even up to 10% more of design loading (any experts know what they actually do?) to develop the maximum safe 'flight performance envelope'.
Well, testing the wing in flight to its max (i.e., 100%) design limits definitely would surprise me. Perhaps you mean the max operating limits?
Quoting aklrno (Reply 200):
The way I understand it, the max design limit=max operating limit. The wing is then required to show in a static test that it will go to 150% of that max before breaking.

I wish I hadn't opened up this discussion, because I will be the first to admit ignorance in aircraft structure design. Difficult to discuss something when you don't know the definition of what they mean by failure at 150% of "wing design load". Is failure considered a yield of material condition or ultimate strength condition? Is fatigue from cyclic loading factored in or out of the 150%. If its factored in there maybe a small cushion to use some of this for a few extreme tests. Of the top I can think of possibly three failure modes for the wings, and perhaps there are many more, and I have no idea which governs. When they say it failed in a static test at 151%, what failed the bolted connection where Airbus had problems, or in bending, and in which way, up or down, because there is stress reversal in the wings, different for some flight envelopes as opposed to landing. It might well be that landing with a full load of passengers with fuel tanks full (and a heavier than normal landing G forces factored in for good measure) is the max stress mode. Is this the design condition on which they static test to 151%? The point is its a little more complicated than we think. This is where we need the experts to jump in - its away over my head because I have more questions than answers.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-13 20:30:36 and read 12299 times.

Quoting twiga (Reply 202):
Difficult to discuss something when you don't know the definition of what they mean by failure at 150% of "wing design load".

As I understand it, Limit Load is the maximum load that the wing is expected to ever experience in flight and Ultimate Load is 150% of Limit Load.



Quoting twiga (Reply 202):
Is failure considered a yield of material condition or ultimate strength condition?

Based on the videos of the failures, it appears to be a material condition as the wing skin fails.



Quoting twiga (Reply 202):
Is fatigue from cyclic loading factored in or out of the 150%.

No. They test a "new" wing.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-04-13 21:43:05 and read 12226 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 197):
Since the main topic for the next meeting will relate to design and certification of the battery as well as (I believe) certification in general I don't think the FAA will wait unless they're still processing the paperwork.

Turns out that there's a Senate hearing looming as well:-

"A U.S. Senate committee is hosting a hearing to discuss ongoing investigations into battery issues aboard the Boeing 787.

The Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has scheduled the hearing for April 16, when the committee will also hear about the Federal Aviation Administration’s efforts to implement safety provisions in FAA authorizations.

"The committee will receive testimony from Michael Huerta, administrator of the FAA; Deborah Hersman, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board; Gerald Dillingham, director of civil aviation issues for the Government Accountability Office; and Jeffery Guzzetti, assistant inspector general for the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General.

"In March, the FAA approved the redesign of Boeing’s battery system, and the NTSB released more details about the battery issues that led to the airplane’s grounding."


http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/ne...-on-boeing-787-investigation?rss=0

I very much fear that the FAA will delay it's final clearance at least until that's over?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: aklrno
Posted 2013-04-13 22:51:56 and read 12152 times.

I doubt that an impending Senate hearing will cause the FAA to delay. The senators are publicity hounds. They generally have the technical skills of a herd of cows. No matter what they hear, the results will be predetermined by political positions. All they can actually do is pass a new law, and they aren't even good at doing that.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Hamlet69
Posted 2013-04-13 23:20:02 and read 12160 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 203):
As I understand it, Limit Load is the maximum load that the wing is expected to ever experience in flight and Ultimate Load is 150% of Limit Load.

  

Correct

Quoting Stitch (Reply 203):
No. They test a "new" wing.

Also correct. An entire vehicle is built for this purpose (we must remember its not just the wing they static test, although that is certainly the key element)

Quoting aklrno (Reply 200):
I think the 777 wing failed at 154%, and was considered a great success. With margins like that in-flight tests don't happen

IIRC, it was just below 154%. But yes, close enough.

Quoting twiga (Reply 202):
When they say it failed in a static test at 151%, what failed the bolted connection where Airbus had problems, or in bending, and in which way

Entirely depends on the aircraft. The ideal is what we witnessed with the 777. It failed (broke) almost exactly when (~153+%) and PRECISELY where the engineers said it would. (another interesting tidbit from memory - total wing deflection was 23 FEET when it failed).

However, other aircraft have provided different results. The A380's wing started buckling right before they got to 150% (I can't remember now precisely where) and the test was stopped. However, because they were so close (IIRC ~148%), it did provide enough data to prove their overall model. Likewise, the 787 started delaminating at the now-infamous wing/body join before destruction occurred. Similarly, they got close enough to prove their model. In both cases, local strengthening was deemed necessary for certification, but not a new test. On the flip-side - the 767's wing NEVER broke. What did end up failing (again, IIRC at ~157%) was the upper fuselage on Section 44/45. In other words, the wing was so strong it caused the fuselage above the wing box to buckle in on itself.

Regards,

Hamlet69

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-14 09:19:23 and read 11808 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 204):
Turns out that there's a Senate hearing looming as well:-

The Senate had been planning such a hearing shortly after JL8.



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 204):
I very much fear that the FAA will delay it's final clearance at least until that's over?

Not a chance. As noted, the Senate is just doing this because it's easier than doing important work like ending the Sequester. Their hearings will have no impact on the FAA's decision and the FAA knows that, so they will ignore it and proceed as planned.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: twiga
Posted 2013-04-14 13:10:09 and read 11513 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 203):
As I understand it, Limit Load is the maximum load that the wing is expected to ever experience in flight and Ultimate Load is 150% of Limit Load.

Thanks Stitch. Now with the correct definition, I don't want to leave wrong ideas or impressions out there about possibly flight testing to 110% of Limit Load (which I called Design Load). Because depending on materials (and I have no idea about CFRP), at around 110% you could get out of the elastic range and start entering the plastic range where deformations become permanent. So based on this they may flight test to up to max 100% and establish safe flight envelope parameters with some cushion around 90% of Limit Load. I don't know but I think this is a reasonable guess. The actual percentages will likely be well established standards set by FAA and/ or the manufactures in their design guidelines.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 206):
On the flip-side - the 767's wing NEVER broke. What did end up failing (again, IIRC at ~157%) was the upper fuselage on Section 44/45. In other words, the wing was so strong it caused the fuselage above the wing box to buckle in on itself.

Thanks for the info and insight. A deflection of 23 ft on the 777 wing is amazing - now don't tell me or more importantly Airbus, that they get some thrust by flapping!   

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 206):
On the flip-side - the 767's wing NEVER broke. What did end up failing (again, IIRC at ~157%) was the upper fuselage on Section 44/45. In other words, the wing was so strong it caused the fuselage above the wing box to buckle in on itself.


This is very interesting. A buckling failure is indicative of a compression failure of material, since it occured on the upper portion of the fuselage/ wing connection (where moments and shear are max) the inflight loading to induce such a failure could come from high g forces, such as abhorting a landing at the last moment with a full load of passengers and fuel. All wing designs are different - when I mentioned stress reversal I was thinking more of Burt Rutan's 'voyager' where there was considerable wing deflection in both directions. Anyway enough of this since we are getting off topic.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-04-14 17:16:46 and read 11273 times.

Quoting twiga (Reply 208):
So based on this they may flight test to up to max 100% and establish safe flight envelope parameters with some cushion around 90% of Limit Load.

I do not believe manufacturers intentionally test aircraft structure to 100% limit load in flight, although it might happen accidentally (the A380 had some wing faring panels or something like that come loose during high speed flutter tests).

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-04-14 20:15:55 and read 11069 times.

Quoting aklrno (Reply 205):
I doubt that an impending Senate hearing will cause the FAA to delay.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 207):
Not a chance. As noted, the Senate is just doing this because it's easier than doing important work like ending the Sequester.

Sincerely hope you're both right, guys. But the FAA is pretty vulnerable, for having certified the dicey batteries in the first place. And it's pretty clear that the NTSB (which has another hearing, specifically on the 787 batteries, coming up on 23/4th. April) is 'stirring the pot' as much as it can. These two current press stories are distinctly worrying:-

"NEW YORK/COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado (Reuters) - U.S. regulators are discussing whether the batteries that burned on Boeing Co's 787 Dreamliner hold any lessons for other aircraft or vehicles.

"George Nield, associate administrator for commercial space transportation at the Federal Aviation Administration, said a dialogue is taking place about whether the overheating of two lithium-ion batteries on the 787 could have broader implications.

"Everyone's looking to see if there are any lessons to be learned from this," Nield told Reuters during a conference hosted by the Space Foundation this week.

"The discussion marks a shift for the agency. Two months after the Dreamliner was approved for service in 2011, a lithium-ion battery caught fire on a Cessna business jet, prompting the FAA to order that lithium-ion batteries be replaced with less hazardous cells on all of those jets within a week. But the agency concluded there were no broader lessons to be learned for the 787 or other aircraft."


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...-ion-battery-caught-fire-boeing-co

"NATIONAL Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Chairman Deborah Hersman said on Friday an upcoming hearing should reveal “a lot more about the certification and design process” that Boeing and aviation regulators used for the 787 Dreamliner battery system before it went into service.

"After that, she said in an interview, “If we believe there are changes that need to be made, we will pursue that.”

"Hersman said the NTSB will review Boeing’s design and risk analysis and the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) certification process in its final investigation report, which should be issued by the end of the year.

"She spoke immediately after a two-day public forum in which industry and government experts gave a broad overview of lithium-ion batteries in transportation, highlighting innovative design choices as well as safety issues. The hearing specifically focusing on Boeing’s batteries and the FAA’s certification is scheduled for April 23 and 24.

"Hersman said the discussion made clear that while lithium-ion batteries have “tremendous potential” and the industry has made “amazing progress,” the risks must be addressed.

"She declined to comment specifically on Boeing’s proposed battery fix. The NTSB is charged with assessing safety and making recommendations, but the FAA sets the rules of aviation, and it’s the agency that grounded the Boeing jets.

“Boeing has to identify and properly mitigate the risks to the FAA’s satisfaction,” Hersman said. Lifting the grounding “really is up to the FAA.”


http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/ind...shed-light-on-boeing-787-batteries

Let's all hope that my fears are unfounded and that the FAA clears the 787 to fly again in the next few days.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: twiga
Posted 2013-04-14 23:16:37 and read 10885 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 210):
Sincerely hope you're both right, guys. But the FAA is pretty vulnerable, for having certified the dicey batteries in the first place.

That was then, before the wild uncontrolable beast got caged for good. If you totally ignore the new robust vented containment vessel then there might be something to this. Thats an old axe to grind we are dealing with the now.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 210):
And it's pretty clear that the NTSB (which has another hearing, specifically on the 787 batteries, coming up on 23/4th. April) is 'stirring the pot' as much as it can. These two current press stories are distinctly worrying:-

In my view, the new battery containment vessel isolates the battery issue from being a safety issue in this case, and kind of pulls the rug on NTSB from having any important input or say whether FAA recertifies the 787. Because if Boeing can demonstrate the containment vessel has 1: 10^6 or 7 whatever the metric is, what then has the battery got to do with safety, other than being a costly nuisance to Boeing and an annoyance to its clients. This was obviously Boeings strategy by coming up with this inovative idea . One of the outcomes from these meetings may well be that if you are going to use Li-ion batteries, at least for the time being until you can prove them safe, then they must be installed in a containment vessel. This is one way NTSB could be brought in and save face and I'm sure it would keep the Sect. of Transportation happy because both NTSB and FAA report to him. Anyway thats how I see it unfolding. I wouldn't be too worried about the press, what do they know, other than to sensationalize and sell stories.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-15 05:36:21 and read 10501 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 210):
Sincerely hope you're both right, guys.

The Senate has no authority over the FAA other than approving the President's choice to head the agency so there is no reason for the FAA to wait to return the 787 to service if they feel it is ready.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-04-15 05:54:54 and read 10481 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 212):
The Senate has no authority over the FAA other than approving the President's choice to head the agency so there is no reason for the FAA to wait to return the 787 to service if they feel it is ready.

And then be castigated for this decision on live TV by the NTSB in front of a senate committee? The FAA won't take that chance.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-15 06:14:41 and read 10435 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 213):
And then be castigated for this decision on live TV by the NTSB in front of a senate committee? The FAA won't take that chance.

I am very confident they will indeed take that chance.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-04-15 06:18:26 and read 10437 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 214):
I am very confident they will indeed take that chance.

OK, time will tell I suppose.

Its the 16th where I am so I'll be the first to point out that the 787 has noe been grounded for 3 months..

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2013-04-15 06:50:40 and read 10381 times.

Just some more clarifications:

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 206):
Also correct. An entire vehicle is built for this purpose (we must remember its not just the wing they static test, although that is certainly the key element)

Although the static test frame was brand new built, the certification require that the 150% ultimate loading requirement must be satisfied no matter at which life time the airplane is at. Thus any degradation due to fatigue must be taken into account during the ultimate test. Usually this can be done by analysis or purposefully degrading the airframe prior to ultimate tests.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 206):
. Similarly, they got close enough to prove their model. In both cases, local strengthening was deemed necessary for certification, but not a new test.

For the 787 after the initial wing root failure, they suspended the test. I beleived they continuted the test once they did the redesign of the wing root. The ultimate fuselage test of the 787 was performed with the strengthened wing root and they did exceed the 150% criteria.

As as previously discussed with the A380 and 787 structure test theads. The 150% test is more of a verification of the analysis (IE. fine tuning your modeling). So even if you do not hit the 150% with the test, the data you get from the test will allow you to fine tune your analysis an allow you to strenghten you structure (or take a hit in strength capability) and still meet the regulatory requirement.

With the same phylosophy, then it would also be an embarasment if you predict failure at 152% and you get test failure at 160%. That means your analysis (which is the primary certification verification of the vast majority of the parts you fly) is way off. . . . start ringing that alarm bell.

bt

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: flpuck6
Posted 2013-04-15 07:42:10 and read 10236 times.

Hi everyone,

FYI the JAL fuselage titles and tail logo have been uncovered two days ago on JA829J in Boston.

It can only mean good news !

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: PITingres
Posted 2013-04-15 08:42:12 and read 10042 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 213):
And then be castigated for this decision on live TV by the NTSB in front of a senate committee? The FAA won't take that chance.

The NTSB has been throwing rocks at the FAA for over 4 decades now, and I'm pretty sure the FAA is used to it. The two agencies are more independent than I think many people appreciate.

As you said, we shall see. If certification is delayed beyond a few more days, I for one would be astonished if it were for anything other than paperwork reasons.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: fcogafa
Posted 2013-04-15 09:40:58 and read 9857 times.

I hear that a non US located 787 should fly in the next 24 hours...

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-15 09:50:57 and read 9831 times.

Ferry flight of the Qatar frame (currently stored at LHR) ?

[Edited 2013-04-15 09:52:43]

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-04-15 19:57:53 and read 9309 times.

Looks as if Washington is very much involved in the decision:-

"U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said on Monday his department will not rush its review of Boeing's plan to fix battery problems for its grounded 787 Dreamliner, but a decision could come “soon.”

“We're not going to short circuit it, we're going to take our time,” LaHood told reporters on the sidelines of a conference on advanced biofuels. “When we're finished reviewing their plan, we will announce it to the world.”


http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...come-soon-20130415,0,6578070.story

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: dkny
Posted 2013-04-16 00:00:14 and read 8996 times.

http://addisfortune.net/articles/et-dreams-to-takeoff/
"The world’s largest aircraft manufacturer, Boeing, will have a pleasant surprise for the global aviation industry next week. Its senior executives are scheduled to arrive in Addis Abeba in the coming few days to announce the positive results of their work, which will see the troubled Boeing 787, aka Dreamliner, back in the air, and taking off once again from Bole International Airport.

Ethiopian Airlines (ET) will be the first commercial carrier in the world to resume flying passengers with one of its 787 aircrafts, which have remained grounded at Bole International Airport since mid-January 2013, after incidents involving battery heat-ups and smoke emissions, sources disclosed to Fortune.

Planned for the last week in April or the first week of May 2013, ET’s resumption of operations with Dreamliner will be the first international flight after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the United States grounded all 787s operating around the world, due to safety concerns."

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Speedbird128
Posted 2013-04-16 01:20:01 and read 8908 times.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 219):
I hear that a non US located 787 should fly in the next 24 hours...

Our resident ANA 788 has disappeared from its hard-stand where it's been for the last couple months. Not sure if it's flown out, or its moved to a hangar for engineering...

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: davidho1985
Posted 2013-04-16 02:45:57 and read 8733 times.

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 223):
I hear that a non US located 787 should fly in the next 24 hours...

Should be Qatar's 787 ferry back to Doha.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-04-16 03:11:44 and read 8691 times.

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 223):
Our resident ANA 788 has disappeared from its hard-stand where it's been for the last couple months. Not sure if it's flown out, or its moved to a hangar for engineering...

Many NH planes have been moving around at their respective locations in preparation for reengineering.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Speedbird128
Posted 2013-04-16 04:03:04 and read 8601 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 225):
Many NH planes have been moving around at their respective locations in preparation for reengineering.

I thought that might be the case, as I noticed that the engineering teams had uncovered the engines etc and cowlings were open so I expect it was return-to-flight inspections...

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: art
Posted 2013-04-16 04:21:52 and read 8781 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 221):
We're not going to short circuit it, we're going to take our time, LaHood told reporters

He certainly knows how to choose his words  

[Edited 2013-04-16 04:24:06]

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-04-16 05:11:52 and read 8654 times.

Looks like this could be the problem. LaHood himself said the wrong thing at very much the wrong time:-

"Boeing Co. (BA)’s effort to get its troubled 787 Dreamliner back in the air is headed for a challenging final hurdle: It needs approval from the U.S. agency that’s already been burned by signing off on the plane’s safety.

"The Federal Aviation Administration is under scrutiny for clearing the 787 in 2007, only to reverse itself after lithium- ion batteries overheated on two jets. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, whose agency includes the FAA, declared the planes safe days before they were ordered parked. FAA officials will face the National Transportation Safety Board this month to explain their initial decision.

"Boeing needs the FAA to end a Jan. 16 grounding order so deliveries can resume from an order book valued at almost $190 billion. Politics, not just safety, will weigh on the agency as it reviews the Dreamliner’s battery redesign and test-flight data, said John McGraw, an aerospace consultant.

“There will have to be some political sensibilities while reviewing this and making sure everybody up the chain and over on the Hill is briefed on what’s being done,” said McGraw, a retired FAA test pilot now based in Stafford, Virginia. “In a normal situation, the secretary would never be involved.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...r-dreamliner-with-no-rush-faa.html

Looks very much as if (at the Senate meeting later today) a lot will depend on Ms. Hersman of the NTSB promising not to 'rock the boat' by attacking the FAA for lifting the grounding?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-16 06:39:25 and read 8413 times.

The explanation is easy - LaHood panicked once NH and JL voluntarily grounded the planes. Of course, he will never admit that, so we shall see how he tap dances his way around it.  

As to the politics angle, Boeing does have two strong advocates in the Senate with Washington State's Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray.

The FAA will be before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which is Chaired by Democrat John Rockefeller of West Virginia. Maria Cantwell is a member of this committee.

And Patty Murray is the Chairwoman of the Senate Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies (looking at the Senate Schedule for the week, the FAA will be discussing their FY 2014 budget before her committee on Thursday).

[Edited 2013-04-16 06:53:55]

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: fcogafa
Posted 2013-04-16 07:39:09 and read 8255 times.

Quoting davidho1985 (Reply 224):

The QTR B787 was towed to Terminal 4 at LHR for an envisioned departure today but presumably it didn't get the required approvals and has gone back to the BA maintenance area!

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-16 07:56:45 and read 8173 times.

The hearings will start at 2:30 Eastern and will be webcast live via the Senate Commerce Committee at http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Home

http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-04-16 09:26:33 and read 7978 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 221):
Looks as if Washington is very much involved in the decision

It should be no surprise that the head of the FAA is personally in the loop on this investigation. How one gets from that to the idea that the FAA grounded the 787 as revenge for Boeing's stance on labor laws is beyond me.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-16 13:14:24 and read 7702 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 228):
Looks very much as if (at the Senate meeting later today) a lot will depend on Ms. Hersman of the NTSB promising not to 'rock the boat' by attacking the FAA for lifting the grounding?

Two hours in, and the 787 has not come up once other than the opening statement by the FAA Chair stating that they are reviewing Boeing's test data.

Almost all the questions have been directed to the FAA head about the closing of contract towers in the Senator's state due to sequestration, though now they're noting that the rules requiring passengers to turn off their electronic equipment are stupid.

So looks like the Senate has no comment on the 787's return to service.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-04-16 15:40:30 and read 7402 times.

ETOPS review:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...tely-from-battery-decision-384756/

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-04-17 20:02:32 and read 6505 times.

Looks from this story as if the FAA is waiting until after the NTSB's hearing (on 23rd./24th. April) but are then expected to give the 787 the OK:-

"Boeing is the first to implement the battery technology on a commercial airplane, and it has been a rocky start. The NTSB continues to investigation a January 7 battery fire on board a Japan Airlines 787.

"At a hearing later this month, the NTSB and a panel of technical experts will grill witnesses, including
Boeing employees, FAA officials and a series of outside experts to try and determine a root cause of the battery fire.

"Analysts estimate that the FAA will then sign off on Boeing's new battery design and allow airlines to begin flying the Dreamliner by late May."


http://www.king5.com/news/aerospace/...g-on-battery-issues-202503971.html

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-04-17 22:16:02 and read 6355 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 235):
"At a hearing later this month, the NTSB and a panel of technical experts will grill witnesses, including Boeing employees, FAA officials and a series of outside experts to try and determine a root cause of the battery fire.

"Analysts estimate that the FAA will then sign off on Boeing's new battery design and allow airlines to begin flying the Dreamliner by late May."

http://www.king5.com/news/aerospace/....html

Leave it to King 5 (our local aviation expert) to do a terrible job of reporting the news again. The NTSB hearing coming up will be dealing with certification of the battery as well as certification in general as it relates to the FAA and aircraft manufacturers and not the root cause which has yet to be determined. If the FAA doesn't sign off until after the meeting it will be because they haven't completed their job yet. If they're waiting for the meeting they'll also have to wait for the findings from the meeting which won't come for another several months.

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2013/B787_hearing/index.html

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-04-18 00:24:55 and read 6145 times.

With respect, 7BOEING7, I get a bit tired of all this 'root cause' stuff. I worked in the property and construction fields, and quite often had to help in investigating accidents and 'incidents'; and help to ensure that they didn't happen again. I can't readily recall a case where there was a single 'root cause' - there were usually several inter-linked 'causes,' which combined to produce the accident - a 'combination of circumstances.'

Boeing appears to have approached the 787 problem in that way - they've modified the batteries (spacing the cells better, insulating them better, etc.) but they've also 're-thought' the levels of charge and discharge, exhaustively checked the wiring etc. (correcting some 'weak links'), and vastly improved the 'containment.'

I also quite often had to help handle the PR side too. If the FAA gives the go-ahead right now, the very next thing that will happen will be a two-day hearing in which the NTSB will 'grill' - yes, that word has been used in press articles - both Boeing and the FAA on the wisdom of that decision. Much better, in PR terms, to wait a few days, let the hearing take its course (it'll probably be a 'draw' anyway) and then OK the 787 to go back into service (subject to very close monitoring of all systems, and possibly reduced ETOPs limits in the early months).


Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 236):
If they're waiting for the meeting they'll also have to wait for the findings from the meeting which won't come for another several months.

No - the FAA is the executive body in this matter, the NTSB only operates on an 'advisory' basis.

[Edited 2013-04-18 00:35:00]

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-04-18 03:30:42 and read 5880 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 237):
Much better, in PR terms, to wait a few days, let the hearing take its course (it'll probably be a 'draw' anyway) and then OK the 787 to go back into service (subject to very close monitoring of all systems, and possibly reduced ETOPs limits in the early months).

So you are proposing a delay in a decision until the hearing takes place, but make a decision before the findings of the hearing are released - which will takes months - as it is good PR?

Such plans takes place all the time and the public in general call them sham hearings and being take along for a ride, when you look at politics today which dominates this type of behaviour, it is easy to understand the ambivalence that the public has toward politicians and others in authority.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-18 06:51:53 and read 5633 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 238):
So you are proposing a delay in a decision until the hearing takes place, but make a decision before the findings of the hearing are released - which will takes months - as it is good PR?

Yes, because the news cycle and people's memories are short.

The news and people will remember the FAA approving the 787's return to service a day before the NTSB holds a hearing.

The news and people will not remember the FAA approving the 787's return to service months before the NTSB releases findings. Doubly so if the 787 returns to service without incident.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-04-18 08:18:53 and read 5476 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 237):
Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 236):If they're waiting for the meeting they'll also have to wait for the findings from the meeting which won't come for another several months.
No - the FAA is the executive body in this matter, the NTSB only operates on an 'advisory' basis

I know, I was being sarcastic/hyperbolic.

Something's happening:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE380 (B-1)

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE512 (I'm guessing a C-1 based on the profile)

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-18 08:24:21 and read 5451 times.

According Matt Cawby, BOE512 is a "functional check flight".

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-04-18 08:44:38 and read 5422 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 241):
According Matt Cawby, BOE512 is a "functional check flight".

I would've thought they were done with those. If it does a 360 at ONP it's a C-1.

Oops, I thought I saw ONP on the flight plan--not there anymore--must have been seeing things.

[Edited 2013-04-18 08:54:21]

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-18 12:12:30 and read 5165 times.

Ethiopian Airlines schedules Boeing 787 service resumption on 25 April.

http://airlineroute.net/2013/04/18/et-787-apr13update/

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KELPkid
Posted 2013-04-18 12:51:12 and read 5050 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 242):
would've thought they were done with those. If it does a 360 at ONP it's a C-1.

Oops, I thought I saw ONP on the flight plan--not there anymore--must have been seeing things.

Flying down to the Newport, OR VORTAC an back would not be an unreasonable flight plan for an ~1hr flight in a jet  

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: NYC777
Posted 2013-04-18 16:08:07 and read 4759 times.

Boeing has confirmed to me that they re resuming standard Boeing test flights with no restrictions. The FAA has okayed these flights and all 787s flown will be equipped with the new batteries and containment system.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-04-18 16:17:22 and read 4721 times.

A new thread is up if I'm reading right, they are saying that all types of test flights can take place with the a/c as they are but to be delivered they must be fitted with the new containment systems.
Ok I understand that, the question would be that this judgement to now allow testing with the current state which caused the grounding is due to .......... a better understanding of how the a/c works or the nature of the incidents which caused the grounding?

http://nyc787.blogspot.com/

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Caryjack
Posted 2013-04-18 16:28:33 and read 4702 times.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 216):
or take a hit in strength capability

How do you do that? Reduce MTOW or some other flight parameter?
A related question, how does wing strength vary with the airliners weight? I am curious because most airliners receive MTOW increases or stretches and I do not recall seeing discussions on this site concerning subsequent wing enhancements.
Thanks,   
Cary

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: NYC777
Posted 2013-04-18 17:09:24 and read 4589 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 246):
A new thread is up if I'm reading right, they are saying that all types of test flights can take place with the a/c as they are but to be delivered they must be fitted with the new containment systems.
Ok I understand that, the question would be that this judgement to now allow testing with the current state which caused the grounding is due to .......... a better understanding of how the a/c works or the nature of the incidents which caused the grounding?

The planes can fly if they have the new battery with the new containment system. They don't have a root cause but the containment system will mitigate any subsequent short circuits and thermal runaways if they occur and not allow these issues to bring down the aircraft.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-04-18 19:37:30 and read 4431 times.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 248):
The planes can fly if they have the new battery with the new containment system. They don't have a root cause but the containment system will mitigate any subsequent short circuits and thermal runaways if they occur and not allow these issues to bring down the aircraft.

How much weight has this added to the frame?

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: ComeAndGo
Posted 2013-04-19 08:30:02 and read 4029 times.

It's not a new battery! It's the same battery with a new containment system. FYI the maker's car batteries suffer the same mysterious unexplained overheating issues. Mitsubishi has shifted one car line to a different make battery and stopped production of a second model.

Is the issue solved? No.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-19 08:32:17 and read 4018 times.

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 250):
It's the same battery

It's quite substantially modified.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-04-19 10:04:00 and read 3895 times.

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 250):
It's the same battery

the battery is not the same.. the individual cells are closer to that description, however they have been modified as well (wrapped), that battery pack the harnesses changed, sone mod to the circuit cards, the ceramic insulation added. Granted not a "New" battery, but an upgraded one.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: BEG2IAH
Posted 2013-04-19 10:25:17 and read 3821 times.

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 250):
It's not a new battery! It's the same battery with a new containment system.

Where have you obtained this information? First time I hear something like this.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-04-19 10:28:14 and read 3816 times.

Another battery question, has redundancy been lost or installation made more difficult with all the changes to the battery and its accomodation. The redundancy I am talking about is where in the event of a Main Battery Failure (discovered on the ground), the APU battery could have been removed and substituted, if I have them mixed up I apologize, I'm running from memory.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-19 10:29:26 and read 3820 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 254):
Another battery question, has redundancy been lost or installation made more difficult with all the changes to the battery and its accommodation.

The Ship's and APU battery have both been given the same modifications so they remain interchangeable. The new containment system does increase the labor time necessary to remove/replace it.

[Edited 2013-04-19 10:54:29]

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: BEG2IAH
Posted 2013-04-19 10:49:38 and read 3756 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 255):
There have been multiple media reports as well as presentations given by Boeing that have been linked to in these threads.

I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying they are the same, just like ComeAndGo?

The reports you mention didn't say it's the same battery by any stretch of imagination. My understanding after reading all of those reports and watching the presentation is that we cannot talk about the same battery after the modifications.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-19 10:55:31 and read 3733 times.

The NTSB revealed the agenda for a two-day investigative hearing on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner’s battery malfunctions. More information here: http://www.nycaviation.com/2013/04/n...nvestigative-hearing/#.UXGE9NzIY2E

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-04-19 10:55:58 and read 3735 times.

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 256):

Quoting Stitch (Reply 255):
There have been multiple media reports as well as presentations given by Boeing that have been linked to in these threads.

I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying they are the same, just like ComeAndGo?

The reports you mention didn't say it's the same battery by any stretch of imagination. My understanding after reading all of those reports and watching the presentation is that we cannot talk about the same battery after the modifications.

It might be a question of semantics. The "base battery" is the same (same chemistry). However, they modified the charging profile as well as spacing and the extra containment. The "main battery" and the "APU battery" are the same battery. Each a/c has two of them.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-19 10:56:50 and read 3726 times.

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 256):
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying they are the same, just like ComeAndGo?

Sorry. I misunderstood the question so you can disregard that statement.  Embarrassment

The batteries now being installed in 787s have undergone modification to reduce the chance of a cell entering thermal runaway and should a cell enter thermal runaway, reduce the chances of adjacent cells also entering thermal runaway. Boeing has also made changes to the parameters of the charging system (voltages and such) to improve the battery life and reduce the incidents of deep-discharging that "bricked" batteries (requiring them to be replaced).

[Edited 2013-04-19 10:57:44]

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-04-19 11:23:59 and read 3625 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 254):
Another battery question, has redundancy been lost or installation made more difficult with all the changes to the battery and its accomodation. The redundancy I am talking about is where in the event of a Main Battery Failure (discovered on the ground), the APU battery could have been removed and substituted, if I have them mixed up I apologize, I'm running from memory.

They will be the same part number and have the same modifications. It will just need to be documented as to where they are installed, Main or APU position. The APU is a backup if the Main battery fails, just swap them out and do the paperwork for the swap.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-19 11:34:53 and read 3587 times.

AP reports that the FAA has lifted the grounding order according to an unnamed congressional official.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/repor...ng-dreamliner-could-fly-next-month

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: twiga
Posted 2013-04-19 11:39:34 and read 3589 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 249):
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 248):The planes can fly if they have the new battery with the new containment system. They don't have a root cause but the containment system will mitigate any subsequent short circuits and thermal runaways if they occur and not allow these issues to bring down the aircraft.

How much weight has this added to the frame?

The new battery/ containment system adds some 150 lbs to the frame for the APU and Main battery. As a later post states its not a new battery but the old one with substantial modifications. Aside from changes related to tightening the charge/ discharge window and softening the rate of charge, they made physical changes such as increasing cell seperation and installing 500 deg C cell to cell insulators. All this and more details you will find on previous posts.

They also redesigned the terminal connectors making them more robust with new locknuts. There must have been some concern about terminal loosening and changes in resistance, due to either vibration, or to g-force shock from landings etc. I have no idea about what max g-forces they use for landing - I suppose its the same amount they would use for undercarriage and wing design. Although there has been no mention of it, one would think they would want to further dampen/ attenuate these issues by placing something resilient under the battery.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-19 11:40:30 and read 3591 times.

And it's now official, the FAA has cleared the 787 to return to service. Next week, the FAA will issue instructions to operators on how to modify planes, and will publish final directive later.

[Edited 2013-04-19 11:44:50]

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: BEG2IAH
Posted 2013-04-19 11:48:40 and read 3546 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 259):
Sorry. I misunderstood the question so you can disregard that statement.

Thanks, Stitch.

Great news (opens extremely slowly): http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=14554

Excerpt: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today took the next step in returning the Boeing 787 to flight by approving Boeing's design for modifications to the 787 battery system. The changes are designed to address risks at the battery cell level, the battery level and the aircraft level.

Next week, the FAA will issue instructions to operators for making changes to the aircraft and will publish in the Federal Register the final directive that will allow the 787 to return to service with the battery system modifications. The directive will take effect upon publication. The FAA will require airlines that operate the 787 to install containment and venting systems for the main and auxiliary system batteries, and to replace the batteries and their chargers with modified components.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-19 11:52:16 and read 3510 times.

As expected, no ETOPS restrictions.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2013-04-19 12:02:59 and read 3452 times.

Quoting twiga (Reply 262):
I have no idea about what max g-forces they use for landing

Max G force designed for the Lower Lobe is per FAR. It is different depending on which direction fore/aft, side/side or up down and whether or not you are attached to the main deck floor beams.

The real problem with the terminal nut is the vibration loading which has a different spectrum depending on which part of the airplane you are at.

Quoting twiga (Reply 262):
one would think they would want to further dampen/ attenuate these issues by placing something resilient under the battery.

Trying to dampen the system can be tricky as you want to avoid coupling with the natual vibration mode of the fuselage.

Can't recall what is used as design criteria to account for wire vibration. All I can remember is in 10's of G's.

bt

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-19 12:08:33 and read 3439 times.

Since we're close to 300 posts on this thread, which is when a new thread is generated by the mods, I opened a new one about the FAA approving the battery changes and planning to lift the AD grounding the 787 at FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes (by Stitch Apr 19 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: tugger
Posted 2013-04-19 12:08:42 and read 3433 times.

Great to hear!

I am thinking it is time for a new thread as this has now changed from a story of the "FAA Grounding" to one of "FAA OK's Proposed Battery Fix".

Tugg

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-19 12:10:17 and read 3425 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 265):
As expected, no ETOPS restrictions.

I hope not, but we haven't seen the AD yet.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: ComeAndGo
Posted 2013-04-19 13:37:41 and read 3301 times.

Do we know what caused the battery failure? No

The fact that the same brand batteries fail in electric cars suggest that the issue is with the chemistry or production process at the manufacturer. Increasing the space between the cells or wrapping them differently doesn't change anything.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: twiga
Posted 2013-04-19 14:07:22 and read 3222 times.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 266):
Quoting twiga (Reply 262):I have no idea about what max g-forces they use for landing.

Max G force designed for the Lower Lobe is per FAR. It is different depending on which direction fore/aft, side/side or up down and whether or not you are attached to the main deck floor beams.The real problem with the terminal nut is the vibration loading which has a different spectrum depending on which part of the airplane you are at.

Thanks for the insight - its a lot more complicated than I thought.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: tugger
Posted 2013-04-19 14:14:14 and read 3200 times.

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 270):
Do we know what caused the battery failure? No

Actually we do, it was caused by overpressure due to thermal runaway. Do we know what caused the initiator incident? Not fully but they understand what that leads to that caused the failure and have worked to address that.

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 270):
Increasing the space between the cells or wrapping them differently doesn't change anything.

It absolutely does change things or else the FAA and other agencies would not have accepted the findings and proposed f"fix" from Boeing. And neither would the airlines.
It most certainly changes what happens in the event of a thermal runaway and how that propagates to a point where here is a damaging failure.

Tugg

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: ComeAndGo
Posted 2013-04-19 19:16:03 and read 3031 times.

We don't know the cause of the thermal runaway.

All the FAA did is sign off on a new containment box that should keep any battery meltdown under control. The fact that the Japanese Aviation Authority requires Japanese carriers to install additional battery monitoring systems, says it all.

It's very reassuring for the traveling public.

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-04-19 19:25:46 and read 3002 times.

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 273):
It's very reassuring for the traveling public.

well there's always the bus or a Carnival Cruise

Topic: RE: FAA Grounds B787: Part 14
Username: iowaman
Posted 2013-04-19 19:46:14 and read 3012 times.

Due this thread reaching over 270 posts and an approved battery fix, please continue the discussion here:
FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes (by Stitch Apr 19 2013 in Civil Aviation)

This thread will be archived for future reference.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/