Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5746722/

Topic: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-04-24 17:51:25 and read 12002 times.

Good news.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...a-boeing-fix-idUSBRE93L10520130423

"Dreamliner set to fly in a week as Boeing fixes battery"

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-04-24 17:57:51 and read 11964 times.

So what happened to the ET aircraft that were supposed to fly today? Did they jump the gun or was that wishful thinking that was on these forums and only these forums.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: tonystan
Posted 2013-04-24 18:18:15 and read 11849 times.

Well apparently the Qatar o e in LHR flew back to DOH today!

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-24 19:04:30 and read 11643 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 1):
So what happened to the ET aircraft that were supposed to fly today? Did they jump the gun or was that wishful thinking that was on these forums and only these forums.

ET had loaded 787 revenue flights into their scheduling system, however I am guessing the installation is taking a bit longer than ET originally thought.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: A36001
Posted 2013-04-25 06:35:42 and read 9829 times.

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer but: What happens if this fix does not work?  

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2013-04-25 06:37:11 and read 9808 times.

Quoting A36001 (Reply 4):
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer but: What happens if this fix does not work?  

It's going to work.

If it doesn't, the grounding is reinstated, it will be much harder to get a re-re certification from the FAA and Boeing's massive gamble on the 787 would be in serious trouble.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: United727
Posted 2013-04-25 06:37:30 and read 9806 times.

Quoting A36001 (Reply 4):
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer but: What happens if this fix does not work?  

Let's not even go there!

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: davidho1985
Posted 2013-04-25 07:01:02 and read 9491 times.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 5):

Quoting A36001 (Reply 4):
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer but: What happens if this fix does not work?

It's going to work.

If it doesn't, the grounding is reinstated, it will be much harder to get a re-re certification from the FAA and Boeing's massive gamble on the 787 would be in serious trouble.

Agree, incident related to 787, especially related to the battery will be the last thing Boeing want to see.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: Alpage
Posted 2013-04-25 08:32:23 and read 8488 times.

Really shocked and stunned with Boeing so called "solution" of the battery problem..Basically they didn't solve anything...they just fire seal boxed the whole battery set...so if (Highly probable) it burns...it burns..at least doesn't bring down the plane. Absolute Awful , Disgraceful and Incompetent !!!!

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-25 09:06:59 and read 8104 times.

Let's keep the discussion about the fixes in the appropriate threads, shall we?



The FAA today has formally lifted the AD grounding the 787, allowing UA to resume revenue flights at their discretion. EASA, JTSB and other agencies are expected to follow shortly:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...g-dreamliner-idUSBRE93O0NI20130425

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-04-25 09:13:39 and read 8023 times.

Quoting Alpage (Reply 8):
Really shocked and stunned with Boeing so called "solution"

Why? The changes to the charger reduce the change of a problem.

The lower charging voltage reduce the risk of a thermal over-run.
The increased discharge voltage reduce the risk of a thermal over-run.
Fixing the wiring issue will prevent batteries being fully discharged which dramatically ages them.

By standard aerospace practices, Boeing has reduces the change of a thermal over-run by a huge amount. I estimate by at least a factor of a thousand. By putting the battery in a box, the change of an issue is less than 10^-7. That meets aerospace requirements. No plane is perfect. But I know in 2020 that horses will transport people fewer miles than the 787 and kill multiple times the people. Don't get me started on motorcycles...

This is battery 'wear and tear' 101. The issue has been solved 'well enough.' Perfection is not required.

I'm more concerned with the corrosion being found with some of the new aluminum. But my concerns don't matter if the chance of a crash remains less than 10^-7.

Quoting Alpage (Reply 8):
t burns..at least doesn't bring down the plane.

As the recent cargo hold fire on the SQ flight proved, real fires unfortunately happen; this is but a thermal runaway which is far more mild. Aircraft do not have to be perfect, just to have a lower chance of killing you on the flight than your commute to the flight. (By a HUGE factor in fact.)

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: justloveplanes
Posted 2013-04-25 09:20:21 and read 7897 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10):
I'm more concerned with the corrosion being found with some of the new aluminum. But my concerns don't matter if the chance of a crash remains less than 10^-7.

What's up with the Aluminum? Does this require another thread?

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: Alpage
Posted 2013-04-25 09:23:43 and read 7874 times.

Of course...the passengers wouldn't mind at all to have the plane's battery set on fire underneath their seats right by their luggage.... but as stated above "The issue has been solved 'well enough."

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: FriendlySkies
Posted 2013-04-25 09:29:22 and read 7781 times.

Quoting Alpage (Reply 8):

Really shocked and stunned with Boeing so called "solution" of the battery problem..Basically they didn't solve anything...they just fire seal boxed the whole battery set...so if (Highly probable) it burns...it burns..at least doesn't bring down the plane. Absolute Awful , Disgraceful and Incompetent !!!!

Can you please explain why it is highly probable that the battery will burn, or why fully containing any (unlikely) fire event is disgraceful?

Or why redesigning the layout of the battery to reduce the risk of thermal runaway to an insignificant level is incompetent?

I hate to break it to you, but that is how all machines are designed. Nothing is 100% safe. Boeing's solution is as good as one could expect given the investigation into the fire events has not yielded any clear root cause. Or let me guess, is the NTSB also disgraceful and incompetent?

 

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: goosebayguy
Posted 2013-04-25 09:43:10 and read 7593 times.

I'm not going to fly on a plane whose battery will catch fire. No matter that they will send the fumes overboard. One day the battery will explode and I look forwards to seeing the repair for that.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-04-25 09:58:29 and read 7422 times.

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 14):
I'm not going to fly on a plane whose battery will catch fire. No matter that they will send the fumes overboard. One day the battery will explode and I look forwards to seeing the repair for that.

Nickel-Cadiums can also catch fire and explode. So you will never fly on most airplanes ? More room for the rest of us.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: Alpage
Posted 2013-04-25 10:50:34 and read 6973 times.

Indeed FriendlySkies nothing is 100 % safe and I agree that's how machines are design. But a battery set that will burn within the 1 years is well bellow the standards. And with more than 800 planes sold that will be a lot burned up batteries to replace. The absurdity of the situation is Boeing not solving what's causing the battery to heat up and burn and "patching it over" with a "sloppy solution". Boeing's press release of "never figure the causes of the fire" is code for "The design of the planes is flawed". Very similar to the disaster when Microsoft launched Windows 95...and only solve it 3 years later with the Windows 98. I am not calling NTSC incompetent , they just don't want 2 words in a plane, smoke and Fire. Even if Boeing came up with "fire team in the cargo haul" solution they may have accepted. Also I don't know how much "political and economic" pressure their are under to let the "Dreamliner" fly.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: tonystan
Posted 2013-04-25 11:25:40 and read 6673 times.

Quoting Alpage (Reply 16):

Albage, the occurrence that brought down the BA B777 at LHR was never fully explained either. Would it stop you getting on one?

I'll be flying on the B787 very soon. I'm not worried!

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-04-25 11:30:02 and read 6639 times.

Quoting tonystan (Reply 17):
Albage, the occurrence that brought down the BA B777 at LHR was never fully explained either. Would it stop you getting on one?

AFAIK, it was fully explained and the root cause (indented ring within the fuel transfer system in the engine or something to that effect causing ice build-up in certain conditions) identified and fixed.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: tonystan
Posted 2013-04-25 11:35:51 and read 6558 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 18):

It was assumed but no evidence ever existed!

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: hannahpa
Posted 2013-04-25 11:40:34 and read 6489 times.

We can do without the fingerpointing. Save that for private messages, please.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-04-25 11:42:06 and read 6468 times.

Quoting tonystan (Reply 19):
It was assumed but no evidence ever existed!

Well, that is true as the evidence (ice) would have melted away by the time investigators got to the engines. But they managed to replicate the hypothesis in their investigation, and also confirm that the fix prevented this from occurring.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-04-25 12:08:20 and read 6221 times.

And a list of risks:
http://www.besthealthdegrees.com/health-risks/

You change of dying, per hour, only goes up 25% flying than playing a computer game or a board game! That is the level of scrutiny a plane goes through. I'm not going to answer those that ignore how the statistical probability of a battery fire has dropped by three orders of magnitude! The batteries will have a far gentler charging cycle, will be charged less and drained less. Each step extends a batteries life.

Or put another way, if I could charge my cell phone 20% more, discharge it 20% more, and charge it at 125 of the current rate, its chance of a thermal over-run would go up 1000 fold. Hence why there is a little chip in the batter to prevent all three of those (and the older batteries without chips over-ran).

I have many more things to worry about. I'd fly a 787 tomorrow if someone would pay for the trip.

Quoting tonystan (Reply 17):
Albage, the occurrence that brought down the BA B777 at LHR was never fully explained either. Would it stop you getting on one?

And the A330/A340 pitot problems haven't gone away 100% either. That actually killed a planeload of people after a few scares:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ral_aviation/print.main?id=5725754

But what is the chance? Can training reduce the impact? For both the batteries and the pitot tubes, the answer is   

The 737 has had numerous rudder issues.
The A380 has the wing crack issue.
The A320 has a wing corrosion issue.
The MD-80 had a 'jack screw' issue.
The A300 had the over-torquing of the tail create an issue...
The DC-10 had two hydraulic lines that could be damaged concurrently.
The MD-11 can be tricky to land due to the smaller horizontal stabilizer
The 727 was tricky to land too (but was extreamly safe as pilots didn't take for granted landing it).
The 747 is a bear to find all the places where corrosion can take hold.


In other words, all planes have problems. Are the problems controlled to the point of less than 10^-7 fatal crashes per hour? If the answer is yes, move on as at that threshold

For example, you are three times more likely to die driving to the airport than during the flight!
And the most riskiest part of the whole trip is crossing the street...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpo...tation_safety_in_the_United_States

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 11):
What's up with the Aluminum? Does this require another thread?

Another thread would be appropriate, but I know only enough to be dangerous. Basically, high salt environments see more corrosion than testing predicted. It isn't that they didn't test with salt, but rather they didn't test the right 'wetness' with the right balance of other 'seaside contaminants.' Flights of over 2 hours dry out the wings enough that the problem goes away. It is a tricky issue. Best solved by going to CFRP.  

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: glideslope
Posted 2013-04-25 12:10:53 and read 6195 times.

Quoting A36001 (Reply 4):

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer but: What happens if this fix does not work?  

We all move Down under and fly F-35's.   

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2013-04-25 12:14:45 and read 6161 times.

Quoting Alpage (Reply 16):
"patching it over" with a "sloppy solution".

As with anything that we do (speaking from a designer stand point) a "sloppy solution" is better than no solution at all.

For all those 3 years waiting for Windows 98, much productivity was done using Windows 95.

And although Boeing stated that the current fix is the final solution, I would not bet on it. Perhaps the approach of containment along with the electronic tweaks, is the final solution, I would venture to guess that in the not too distance future, the containment box will be integrated into the battery itself. 150 lbs is a big carrot for looking at re-packaging the battery.

As for not flying the plane because of the battery, I would recommend you use a more likely excuse of not flying the plane because of potential bird ingestion in the engines. After all, you'll more likely get a plane in trouble with a bird ingestion than with a 787 battery fire (with the fix). Somebody can probably dig up the statistic of how many bird ingestion we get in a year for large commercial airliners . . . some of us will definitely be surprised.

bt

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: PlaneAdmirer
Posted 2013-04-25 12:38:04 and read 6144 times.

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 14):
One day the battery will explode and I look forwards to seeing the repair for that.

You and I, and I hope most people on this site, have very different hopes.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2013-04-25 14:54:59 and read 5171 times.

Quoting PlaneAdmirer (Reply 25):
have very different hopes.

When they started the 787, I was hoping to see them do a repair of the composite fuselage.

Well, I have not seen any video of the 787 battery fix and how they do the vent hole, but I guess I'll get to see it soon  

As for a flaming battery, the most likely fix is to take the battery out and replace it with a new one, along with the ruptured disk. Not much to see here . . . move along . . .   . Oh, don't forget to wipe down the side of the containment box before you put the new battery in.   

nt

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-04-25 14:59:09 and read 5224 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 22):
In other words, all planes have problems. Are the problems controlled to the point of less than 10^-7 fatal crashes per hour? If the answer is yes, move on as at that threshold

I agree, if the problem has been controlled to this level, then it is as good as fixed.

However it remains to be seen if the actual incident rate lives up to the predicted rate. It did not in the original design, which is why we had the grounding in the first place,

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: nimool
Posted 2013-04-25 17:19:16 and read 4316 times.

QTR's 787 flew back to DOH this week on Wednesday (i think). Anyway doesn't matter when they're coming back in full service the good this is that we know for sure THEY ARE COMING BACK!! for which we should thank Boeing.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: Alpage
Posted 2013-04-25 17:28:12 and read 4259 times.

Didn't anwer my question about the core battery problem and just "patched over it". Kinda wondering whether there is a "cultural" pattern here...

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: bellancacf
Posted 2013-04-25 17:37:43 and read 4204 times.

@ Alpage: It may be that you're running up against "thread fatigue", because there must be 1500-odd posts dealing with the issues you mention. I think we're all just a bit relieved that the planes are going to return to the air at this point. You might hunt up Boeing's presentation of the fix, because it's considerably more than a steel box, and many here seemed to find it informative. But, yes, flip through some of the locked threads and take a look at the discussions of these points. The TechOps thread is good, too, and quite to the point.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: zkokq
Posted 2013-04-25 17:37:45 and read 4212 times.

Quoting Alpage (Reply 29):
Didn't anwer my question about the core battery problem and just "patched over it"

Boeing has shown there was a multitude of things they have done to decrease failure rate
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/boei...full-787-battery-fix-faa-1C8504962

Then the software changes noted already

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10):
The lower charging voltage reduce the risk of a thermal over-run.
The increased discharge voltage reduce the risk of a thermal over-run.
Fixing the wiring issue will prevent batteries being fully discharged which dramatically ages them.
Quoting Alpage (Reply 29):
Kinda wondering whether there is a "cultural" pattern here...

What are you refering to?

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: tommy767
Posted 2013-04-25 17:57:46 and read 4078 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 22):

The 737 has had numerous rudder issues.
The A380 has the wing crack issue.
The A320 has a wing corrosion issue.
The MD-80 had a 'jack screw' issue.
The A300 had the over-torquing of the tail create an issue...
The DC-10 had two hydraulic lines that could be damaged concurrently.
The MD-11 can be tricky to land due to the smaller horizontal stabilizer
The 727 was tricky to land too (but was extreamly safe as pilots didn't take for granted landing it).
The 747 is a bear to find all the places where corrosion can take hold.

Yet it's quite amazing how the 777 has been around for 18 years with little to no issues  

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: Alpage
Posted 2013-04-25 18:04:14 and read 4053 times.

When you read the NBC's article it's funny to see NO ONE officially from Boeing to speak about this "fix" and "so called sources" secretly denying vehemently that is a "band-aid" . Then Boeing declined to comment specifically on its proposal. Sorry Dudes but I will not be quiet and will leave my protests here. The 777 is a good design, with good solutions... that's why is not in this list above.

[Edited 2013-04-25 18:05:45]

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-04-25 18:36:11 and read 3951 times.

Quoting Alpage (Reply 33):
When you read the NBC's article

Maybe instead of reading (or viewing) NBC's article, one should review over 3000 posts that included detailed explanations, Boeing videos and presentations, as well as comments of nay sayers and trolls with no credible knowledge.

Am always amazed that after 3 months of dissection and analysis, there are new people that jump in and troll.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: Alpage
Posted 2013-04-25 19:24:48 and read 3821 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 34)
Maybe instead of reading (or viewing) NBC's article, one should review over 3000 posts that included detailed explanations, Boeing videos and presentations

Don't care if there was 3000, 5000 or 10000 posts about this , if it took 3 , 6 12 months, as 98% of these posts don't go into the core of the problem but only choreographically praising the band-aid job. I don't care if you are here since 2008 and posted whatever, it doesn't prove credible knowledge to me either.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-04-25 20:13:17 and read 3688 times.

@ Alpage, you should go and read a little bit more about the repair process and design. Your posts come off as rather ignorant on a topic that has been discussed extensively. It is no one's job to prove anything to you, as i'm sure you are fully capable of going to the boeing website, flightglobal, aviation week etc to read indepth how Boeing has tried to reduce the issues discovered.

For the record, no root cause has been found and hence the most that can be done is to reduce the chance of any issues discovered happening. I believe they have addressed that very well.

Again, educate yourself some more on the battery re-design details to avoid sounding ignorant.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: zkokq
Posted 2013-04-25 20:30:56 and read 3630 times.

Quoting Alpage (Reply 35):

I suggest that you read one of the many 787 threads which cover this topic in great depth.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: RIXrat
Posted 2013-04-25 21:33:23 and read 3496 times.

Alpage, I contribute to this forum materials and comments when I think that I am qualified to do so, and not to build up my posts. I have not contributed anything to any of the 787 battery topics, because I'm no engineer and I don't want to sound foolish and lose any respect among our fellow members. On the other hand, I have closely followed all the topics pertaining to this problem and soak up the information from wiser participants, instead of going off with half-cocked information. That's the way I see it.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-04-25 23:03:45 and read 3365 times.

Quoting Alpage (Reply 35):
I don't care if you are here since 2008

Among the commenters you dismiss are 2 Boeing engineers associated with the 787 program, a third engineer associated with other programs, a Fire Marshall who did extensive research into Li-ion batteries (and corrected some assumptions), and I was in manufacturing and a senior process and procedure writer. Then there are a dozen highly qualified non Boeing personnel who researched and provided stability to the discussions. On the other side were trolls.

we've pointed to the trough of knowledge, however nobody can force you to drink.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-04-25 23:44:56 and read 3286 times.

Unnamed insiders telling me NH should have it airborne next week for test flights. Japan regulators already gave them the green lights to resume flights

http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...-to-allow-boeing-787s-to-fly-again

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-04-26 00:00:04 and read 3249 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 39):
On the other side were trolls.

This is just offensive. Everyone not on "Boeing's side" of the discussion that is driven by Boeing engineers (who are clearly not omnipotent or omniscient, or we would not have had the problem in the first place), or have questions, are just trolls? Wow! So no discussion of the solution allowed? The FAA, NTSB, JAA, the airlines, etc are also all trolls, I guess, for daring to ask questions and not just succumbing to groupthink? All questions and decisions that seem to even remotely run counter to the official partyline are driven by politics, "need to save face", trolling, ignorance, and "Boeing hating", but not out of a genuine "once bitten, twice shy" or "trust, but verify" concern and approach?

[Edited 2013-04-26 00:29:33]

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: Bthebest
Posted 2013-04-26 05:57:04 and read 3005 times.

Just read an article on Flight Global (sign-in required) that says:

"Although not contractually obligated to compensate airlines for schedule disruptions and delivery delays caused by the groundings, McNerney says Boeing will use a "variety of ways" to smooth things over with airlines."

That's a pretty flimsy contract if you're not covered for excess costs due to a product design flaw! I can understand it if was due to an FAA grounding in which the original design was not at fault, but in this case surely all the blame is on Boeing.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-04-26 06:20:21 and read 2942 times.

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 42):
That's a pretty flimsy contract if you're not covered for excess costs due to a product design flaw! I can understand it if was due to an FAA grounding in which the original design was not at fault, but in this case surely all the blame is on Boeing.

It's more nuanced than that. The contract language is tight enough to allow Boeing to limit compensation to the letter of the contract. This would protect Boeing to the amounts available via insurance and/or they could duck some compensation via semantics.

What Boeing instead plans to do (I think) is use a combination of discounts on future aircraft, maintenance agreements (free or discounted) and other incentives (perhaps even cash) to smooth over the issues with the airlines. It's good P.R. and you want to keep customers coming back given Airbus has stepped up with a very compelling aircraft (A350).

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2013-04-26 06:59:21 and read 2848 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 41):

This is just offensive. Everyone not on "Boeing's side" of the discussion that is driven by Boeing engineers

Yes, Kanban, calling someone a troll is somewhat offensive to some. There are more elegant words to use . . . Shakespeare has many words for the purpose.  

As for the discussion driven by Boeing engineers, that is not correct, there were plenty of pro Airbus members that commented on the subject matter. Many of whom agreed with the Engineering/System design aspect of the fix, although they may still criticize Boeing for the initial design and the PR aspect of the change.

Also, there are many non-partisan pilots and airlines folks that have followed the subject and provided their comments.

Still there are some skeptic as yourself. As with any discussion, this is expected. There are still people out there who distrust the safety of a composite fuselage. Unfortunately as with both subject the answer will not be resolve until a 787 go down or the next battery failure.

So until we get a battery failure of the new system, please continue with the discussion with more civility.

Thanks,

bt

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-04-26 08:03:00 and read 2706 times.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 44):
As for the discussion driven by Boeing engineers, that is not correct, there were plenty of pro Airbus members that commented on the subject matter. Many of whom agreed with the Engineering/System design aspect of the fix, although they may still criticize Boeing for the initial design and the PR aspect of the change

Biker, even skeptics like me are happy to go along with the solutiion if it works! I also wrote earlier in the thread:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 27):

I agree, if the problem has been controlled to this level, then it is as good as fixed.

However it remains to be seen if the actual incident rate lives up to the predicted rate. It did not in the original design, which is why we had the grounding in the first place,


Being called a troll for having concerns or questions, or reserving final judgment until we see the results, certainly does not make me happy, nor does it make for constructive discussions.

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-04-26 09:22:48 and read 2606 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 41):
This is just offensive.

please note the sentence below that included you....

Quoting kanban (Reply 39):
Then there are a dozen highly qualified non Boeing personnel who researched and provided stability to the discussions.

OK, so some find 'trolls' distasteful as a moniker, please substitute any one of the following smell fungus, cullion, swelp or pecksniff   

Topic: RE: 787 Set To Fly In A Week
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-04-26 09:38:39 and read 2562 times.

Last week the FAA approved Boeing's design for modifications to the 787 battery system. On Tuesday, United ferried one of their 787 aircraft from LAX to Kelly Field in San Antonio, where a team from Boeing has now begun the battery system modification under the supervision of United Tech Ops. Boeing is doing the work under United procedures, and that work needs to inspected and audited for every step. United has personnel there 24/7 providing maintenance, engineering and quality oversight.

United expects this work to take five to six days and after that Boeing will perform some additional modifications that will enhance operational reliability. On Saturday, United plans to ferry a second 787 to San Antonio for the same work. If the return-to-service strategy goes as planned, the 787 will be on track to return to service on domestic routes before the June 10 launch of United's DEN-NRT service.


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/