Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Grounds 787 Part 3  
User currently offlineNZ1 From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 2268 posts, RR: 25
Posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 32510 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Please carry on discussion here. Previous thread was FAA Grounds 787 Part 2 (by iowaman Jan 17 2013 in Civil Aviation)

NZ1
Forum Moderator

268 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 316 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 32500 times:

[Reposted from the other thread, as my post came right after the previous thread was closed]

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 196):
Quoting rcair1 (Reply 169):
The FAA believe it MAY BE a safety of flight issue.

Read what they wrote again, carefully:

These conditions, if not corrected, could result in damage to critical systems and structures, and the potential for fire in the electrical compartment.

I think you and some others are parsing out the word "could" to mean "well, it hasn't happened yet, so it's not yet a safety of flight issue, and may never be." But that's not what that means.

Again, we're in the middle of an interpretation problem, due to the subtlety of english vocabulary (differences between "is", "may be", "could", "is not")

Also, you seem to be thinking along the lines of "either it is safe, or it is not". This binary representation is only valid if you have a complete knowledge of the entire situation. Or more precisely, complete knowledge of every single chain of events that could be triggered by a battery issue, and of the consequences of these chains on the rest of the aircraft, so that you can actually assess the safety of the design.

But neither the FAA nor Boeing are omniscient, and probably do not have all this knowledge.
They know the batteries have a problem, they know smoke and electrolyte is projected outside of the containement box.
But this probably invalidates several of the hypotheses used for design and certification of the battery system. So they probably do not know precisely what could happen beyond the projection of smoke and electrolyte.
And they probably have come up with several potential scenarii in which catastrophic failures are a result.

Until these potential scenarii can be confirmed as impossible or sufficently highly unlikely, then these scenarii will have to be considered as a risk, and the appropriate safety measures will have to be taken.
But as the causes of the issue also seem unknown, we can't take any preventive measures directly on the batteries, such as checks and/or replacement. The batteries (at least the MAIN) cannot be removed for flight. So that leaves only one option, to ground the fleet

So to summarize, the situation here is not "the plane is unsafe". But rather "the 787 may very well be sufficiently safe, but it may also not be. We just don't know. And until we do know, then it will remain grounded"

Information is always the key...
And I do not have much more of it than anyone else here about the actual 787 events, which is why I added "probably" or "it seems", and will qualify this entire post as "my opinion".



One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently offlinetraindoc From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 32243 times:

Go to Bloomberg's website for an article on the LI ion batteries. The problem may be due to a bad batch of these batteries from a Japanese manufacturer. Certainly possible, in that the A/C involved are recent builds. The early build planes seem to not have this problem. At he Bloomberg website they have a picture of the remains of the battery from the JAL plane in Boston. Almost nothing left but the battery box, which survived the fire intact.

Reference here:

.http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-18/why-the-batteries-in-boeings-787-are-burning


User currently offlineBLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 370 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 32203 times:

@HAWK - I agree on the positioning flight. I specifically asked the AI PR department about VT-ANJ and whether AI would move the aircraft to BOM which is their main engineering base (you are the more knowledgeable person on that. They told me that they would fly engineers for the service to respective cities.

We too have the FAA EAD on our site. However, it is not clear.

Also my response was referring to the statement on the previous thread about test flights of the new 787s which are being produced. If empty flights are allowed like in the case of AI, then by the same logic, test flights should also be allowed.



I am on Twitter @BLRAviation
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3039 posts, RR: 28
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 31860 times:

Photo of the damaged NH battery alongside an undamaged battery. The cover has been removed in both.




Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 644 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 31543 times:

This may have been posted in the locked Parts but Boeing has suspended 787 deliveries.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21095056

They will need a large parking lot if the grounding is extended for weeks!


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 869 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 31413 times:

Quoting traindoc (Reply 2):
he problem may be due to a bad batch of these batteries from a Japanese manufacturer.

So this is a co-incidence? An aircraft with a history of electrical problems severe enough to cause arcing and fire just happens to have a bad batch of batteries installed causing yet more fires.

After reading though hundreds of posts on this subject I’m still none the wiser about this incident – The information just isn’t out there yet.


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 31243 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 5):
This may have been posted in the locked Parts but Boeing has suspended 787 deliveries.

Why would any customer take delivery of an aircraft they could not use? A payment is made on delivery, too, IIRC.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 6):
After reading though hundreds of posts on this subject I’m still none the wiser about this incident – The information just isn’t out there yet.

Many interesting and informative posts from very knowlegeable a.netters, indeed. Could any of the cognoscenti hazard how long the grounding will be if it is determined that the problem is "simply" manufacturing defects in the batteries concerned? I ask because I imagine that if this were identified as the cause of the problem, it would be the simplest to resolve.


User currently offlinepetteri From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 281 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 31223 times:

I came across this interesting piece of news today. Of course this may be not at all related to the failures of the batteries that we've seen, as the complaints raised by this employee took place during the design phase of the batteries. The article talks about how this employee feels he was fired for pointing out flaws in the design of the battery.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...ystem-fired-for-pointing-out-flaws

Of note it certainly appears that this employee had more going on in the work place than his complaint on the battery design and he did not gain Whistleblower protection from his dismissal from the company. The date on the letter from his lawyers is dated from 2011 so it does pre-date the current problems.

EDIT: This firm Securaplane is responsable for the charging unit of the battery.

[Edited 2013-01-19 06:21:49]


The above comments are my personal comments and in no way should be viewed as the views,policy or statements of JetBlue
User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 31201 times:

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 3):
Also my response was referring to the statement on the previous thread about test flights of the new 787s which are being produced. If empty flights are allowed like in the case of AI, then by the same logic, test flights should also be allowed.

The ban of operations by the DGCA was a ban on revenue operations, not all operations.

The FAA may have different policies for US-flagged aircraft. Tests certainly can take place in India.

[Edited 2013-01-19 06:21:28]


Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2648 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 30898 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

From Part 2:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 196):
I think you and some others are parsing out the word "could" to mean "well, it hasn't happened yet, so it's not yet a safety of flight issue, and may never be." But that's not what that means. No design or construction flaw has ever caused an accident before it actually caused an accident; that doesn't mean the danger didn't exist before it did. It's like saying "my house doesn't need smoke detectors because it's never burned down before."

Obviously that's an extreme example - I am not saying were it not for this grounding, that there'd ever be a 787 crash due to a battery fire.

No, that's not what "could" means. It doesn't simply mean it won't happen because it hasn't happened yet, it means that it may or may not happen. That is not a certainty. The FAA are playing it safe, as it rightly should.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 196):
But the word "could" there means the potential for damage to critical systems exists. When there is a condition that can lead to potential damage to critical systems, that is a safety of flight issue. And the plane wouldn't be grounded otherwise.

Replace the word "when" with "if" and that statement is more or less correct. To use "when" suggests that it will happen. That's not what the FAA are saying.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 1):
Again, we're in the middle of an interpretation problem, due to the subtlety of english vocabulary (differences between "is", "may be", "could", "is not")

  



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineboacvc10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 616 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 30650 times:

Quoting petteri (Reply 8):
I came across this interesting piece of news today. Of course this may be not at all related to the failures of the batteries that we've seen, as the complaints raised by this employee took place during the design phase of the batteries. The article talks about how this employee feels he was fired for pointing out flaws in the design of the battery.

At a first glance, it seems to be an interesting discovery. Could this lead to a, "smoking gun" ?



Up, up and Away!
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 30576 times:

Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 11):

It's the dailykos. Just saying...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31132 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 30528 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 5):
This may have been posted in the locked Parts but Boeing has suspended 787 deliveries.

Like they have a choice.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 5):
They will need a large parking lot if the grounding is extended for weeks!

I would expect they would be allowed to perform positioning flights to other locations for storage, if necessary.


User currently offlinetonytifao From Brazil, joined Mar 2005, 1030 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 30346 times:

So is there any idea when the fleet will be back in the air? Can anyone summarize the latest information? Is this as easy as replacing the faulty batteries?

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6748 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 30325 times:

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 1):
So to summarize, the situation here is not "the plane is unsafe". But rather "the 787 may very well be sufficiently safe, but it may also not be. We just don't know. And until we do know, then it will remain grounded"

Well, no. If we don't know then by default it's not safe enough, hence the grounding. I agree with spacecadet on this one.
The basis for certification is that many kinds of failures can happen, without downing the aircraft. If we now discover failures that were not predicted, all bets are off.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 6):
So this is a co-incidence? An aircraft with a history of electrical problems severe enough to cause arcing and fire just happens to have a bad batch of batteries installed causing yet more fires.

Not to defend the 787 but the arcing was determined to have been caused almost certainly by metal shavings, something that could happen anywhere for many reasons (and a modification has been made to minimize the risk).



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2517 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 30231 times:

Would, could, will, when, if . . . .

Can't we all just agree that in the view of the regulators (FAA, EASA etc), anything supposed to be airborne that has not been demonstrated to be safe, is by definition unsafe? Makes life and these sort of discussions so much easier.

Thanks,
PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offline_AA_777_MAN From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 179 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 29697 times:

I was driving by ORD yesterday and noticed that Lot's 787 is still at ORD. Last I heard they were supposed to ferry it back to WAW on the 17th. Hopefully someone can take some pics.

User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 869 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 29520 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15):
Not to defend the 787 but the arcing was determined to have been caused almost certainly by metal shavings, something that could happen anywhere for many reasons (and a modification has been made to minimize the risk).

I wasn’t aware that it was proven. I know they suspected it could be FOD, but as the firearc would destroy the FOD then it’s presence could only ever be theorised.


User currently offlineordwaw From United States of America, joined May 2006, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 29494 times:

Quoting _AA_777_MAN (Reply 17):
I was driving by ORD yesterday and noticed that Lot's 787 is still at ORD.

As far as LO's SP-LRA it is my understanding that there were indications in the cockpit of problems with the Air Conditioning system on the WAW-ORD flight, and the plane would have gone tech anyways - was the problem fixed?

On a similar note ...
Is the QR's 788 (canceled LHR-DOH flight on 1/16) still at LHR or was it ferried back to DOH? Was there ever any explanation as to what caused the cancelation of that flight.


User currently offlinefrmrcapcadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1731 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 29406 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 16):
Can't we all just agree that in the view of the regulators (FAA, EASA etc), anything supposed to be airborne that has not been demonstrated to be safe, is by definition unsafe? Makes life and these sort of discussions so much easier.

It sounds good, it sounds common sense. But as I understand risk management (and the math et cetera they use) the statement does not make sense, and does not help define the steps that need to be taken to ensure safety.

The basic problem is "Anything ... that has not been demonstrated to be safe". In essence it asserts that regulators must prove and demonstrate a negative. You have stated an impossibility.



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3642 posts, RR: 27
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 29353 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 1):
Again, we're in the middle of an interpretation problem, due to the subtlety of english vocabulary (differences between "is", "may be", "could", "is not")

Consider that all releases from manufacturers and regulatory generally go through their legal staff to ensure no absolutes are stated that leave room for law suits.

Scanning the morning news today I noticed some interesting comments.. One there seems to be a shift from the batteries themselves to the charging process and charging rate regulators. Second, it was noted when a battery burns, it usually destroys some of the key components needed for analysis. And third, they are looking at the a/c's extensive computer logs for everything from charging rates to first flickers of warning/informational displays.
Since 90% of the articles rehashed old stuff and boilerplate, and no conclusions were postulated, I didn't bother copying all the URLs.


User currently offlinePlaneInsomniac From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 29182 times:

Quoting ordwaw (Reply 19):
On a similar note ...
Is the QR's 788 (canceled LHR-DOH flight on 1/16) still at LHR or was it ferried back to DOH? Was there ever any explanation as to what caused the cancelation of that flight.

Like the FAA, EASA has grounded the 787. The Dreamliners are not going anywhere at the moment.



Am I cured? Slept 5 hours on last long-haul flight...
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31132 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 29110 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 22):
Like the FAA, EASA has grounded the 787. The Dreamliners are not going anywhere at the moment.

That wasn't the reason for the original cancellation, however. QR stated their was a technical issue that required the plane to overnight at LHR to await parts. QR still operated all other scheduled 787 services that day after the FAA issued the Emergency AD that grounded UA. QR subsequently grounded their flights in accordance with the AD.


User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 316 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 28557 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15):
If we don't know then by default it's not safe enough

I'll be accused of splitting hairs, but once again that is not sufficiently precise  


First, see :

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Reply 20):
The basic problem is "Anything ... that has not been demonstrated to be safe". In essence it asserts that regulators must prove and demonstrate a negative. You have stated an impossibility.

Second, the actions to be undertaken are different if we are talking about :
1) I KNOW the aircraft is not safe
2) I DO NOT KNOW if it is safe, and I have reason to suspect it is not

In the first case you have to take positive action to correct the situation, in this case modify the architecture of the batteries and/or systems around the batteries to prevent any impact on the systems. Which would last weeks or months, cost a lot, and make lots of noise in the media.

In the second case, you take steps to collect and analyse the necessary data. Until then, you consider any scenario is possible, and take the appropriate safety measures to prevent the worst case scenario (which does not necessarily imply grounding, BTW). Notice the "We consider this AD interim action" in the FAA emergency AD. The same formula was also used by EASA in the Emergency ADs about AOA probes on Airbus aircraft a couple months ago
Once you have the info you need, then you now know for sure what the situation is. If you now know for sure the aircraft is unsafe, then go to 1). If it's OK then case closed.


I'm insisting here because I think it's important in order to understand what's going on.

If you understand the current FAA position as "we don't know if the 787 is safe in case of a battery issue, so we're checking", then it does not invalidate previous statements by FAA management of their confidence in the safety of the plane, it does not invalidate the certification process as a whole (it just has to be completed to take into account the new experience).
Also the outcome of the checks could very well be that the 787 is deemed sufficiently safe. In which case, the 787 could be released without a major architecture change, and definitive corrections to the battery issue will come at a later date.

If you understand the current FAA position as "we know the 787 is NOT safe", then that means the FAA is negating all it has done so far with regard to the 787, and FAA management is backpedaling.
And if the plane is released without any major change, then the immediate conclusion is that the FAA is in bed with Boeing, totally corrupt, bla bla bla. And we are already seeing such reactions...


So i'm insisting because such oversimplifications are usually the starting point for all those conspiracy theories, accusations of corruption and compromising of safety etc...
I know this is not the Tech/Ops section, but I think that people on this forum are aware that aviation is complex. And we can therefore avoid oversimplifications.



Quoting kanban (Reply 21):
Consider that all releases from manufacturers and regulatory generally go through their legal staff to ensure no absolutes are stated that leave room for law suits.

I'm sure they don't leave room for legal action, but there is still room for subtly different understandings of the phrasing



One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
25 francoflier : So it's come down to a semantics battle... Boy, we really are a bunch of desperate nerds.
26 Stitch : And I for one appreciate you making the effort. I honestly don't know if the situation with the batteries warranted grounding the plane versus requir
27 francoflier : One of the difference between these cases and the 787 issue is the ratio of event numbers / total flight hours for the type. It is much, much greater
28 seahawk : Fire protection against a burning li battery is moot anyway. Either the containment keeps the fire under control or not. You would need to cover the b
29 Post contains links SKGSJULAX : Looks like another theory has been advanced by the Japanese investigators: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...na-787-battery-malfunction-381268/ (
30 7BOEING7 : Actually at time of the first DC-10 cargo door event there were fewer DC-10's flying than 787's now but it wasn't until the second event on THY that
31 Post contains images Kaiarahi : I raised the actual wording/meaning of the special conditions in the previous thread, and Cubsrule, airmagnac, Stitch, CM and others took it up. Like
32 Stitch : And that AD didn't ground the fleet, even after the largest loss of life in the history of commercial aviation to that time. AA96 also happened less
33 Post contains links and images rushed : Interesting point - not much value in delivering a plane the airline can't currently fly. A bit like buying a car and being told you can't have the k
34 Post contains links PHX787 : From Japan Today: http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...-suspect-excess-voltage-in-battery It was in the back of my head too on the other thread. Let
35 suseJ772 : I have had four separate MacBook Pros - all the way from the first version - and I can say that the battery recalls on them have been quite high for
36 KarelXWB : Or trains, like our beloved Fyra train (sorry, I couldn't resist).
37 sweair : The thing that surprises me is that so many here think Boeing and FAA did not think of over charging, testing this etc Do you really think Boeing and
38 Stitch : I fully expect they did. But if these two batteries failed because they overcharged, why did that happen when the system should have prevented it? If
39 KarelXWB : Of course they did. Back in 2007 Boeing had to prove the FAA that the use of those batteries were save.
40 frmrcapcadet : Now to write something in defense of some of the skeptics. We had two NASA Challenger disasters., there are repeated drug and medical devices disaster
41 RobertS975 : Why bother going back to WAW? It may be necessary to ferry the plane back to the factory for some reworking before it will fly passengers again.
42 Aesma : I don't disagree with what you're saying but I don't see where it contradicts what I'm (and others are) saying. I have no idea how long the grounding
43 Stitch : For the moment, at least, the 787 is less dangerous than the DC-10 as it has not suffered an accident, a hull-loss, an injury* or a fatality. So I gu
44 ComeAndGo : The bad battery could still contaminate and potentially damage the electronics bay. How do you know a battery is good or bad ?? The battery has to be
45 planesmart : A big part of regulatory safety oversight, are financial indicators. With prudent oversight and enormous financial penalties for non-compliance, outso
46 Kaiarahi : But "safe" needs to be defined, ultimately. No manufacturer can live with "we can't define safe, but we'll know it when we see it and let you know th
47 Post contains images RickNRoll : Zeke has already raised the removal of the APU battery for now. That's pretty easy. For the other battery, stick the container inside another much he
48 BEG2IAH : In a world of tax accounting and regulations semantics is very well defined and I can't see why it wouldn't be in a far more precise engineering fiel
49 Post contains links ordwaw : Yet, they modified the design in 2008 to boost their service life. Interesting article from 2008, describing what appears to be last minute design ch
50 Stitch : Interesting to note that the older chemistry, while inherently more volatile than what Boeing swapped for, might have ended up being the safer route
51 Aesma : Well, it's a little like that I would think. Lots of experiences made the current regulations what they are, experiences including incidents and acci
52 Post contains images airtechy : Assuming that the problem is a pair of bad batteries, it brings up the challenge of how you test for the unknown defect that caused the battery to cat
53 rickabone : A very reputable news organization... Just saying!
54 RayChuang : From what I've read they have found the culprit: the lithium-ion battery charging system. It appears that the software protocol to recharge the batter
55 RickNRoll : Not wanting to be a pain, but it only fixes the problem of the batteries failing as they have recently. They still need to address the issue of conta
56 francoflier : On the contrary. Based on your accurate statement that safety regulations are based on experiences, good and bad, then an aircraft pioneering new tec
57 Stitch : If that is indeed the culprit, I wonder why have so many 787s flown for so long (four of them for over a year) without the batteries overheating? The
58 art : How long to fix - 2 weeks / 4 weeks / 6 weeks / 8 weeks? Don't suppose it matters THAT much. It's not like the airlines have lost the use of hundreds
59 kanban : the information was the serial numbers were within 30 of each other.. now with only 50 planes flying and another 30 built plus 5 spares at each airli
60 JoeCanuck : Semantics are of key importance in regulations...they are what wins and losses hang on in court. On a practical level, safety is never absolute. In e
61 Aesma : While true, I don't remember discussing the batteries before recent events. If we had to bet on what would go wrong, I doubt the batteries would have
62 CM : The S/N of the batteries won't really be meaningful. It is the batch number of the cells within the battery that matters. The way the cells within th
63 RickNRoll : It is just as important. It will have to be tested and re-certified. An analogy is ETOPS. A plane is certified for ETOPS 180. During a flight, an eng
64 airtechy : CM....Interesting. Would you see this as a test run at the spiral level, after it is cut into individual cells, or at the battery level? What sort of
65 spacecadet : No, we're actually not. There is no subtlety here. The words and phrasing are very clear - it takes a severe mangling of the English language and the
66 KC135Hydraulics : Have there been any pictures of the main battery that has failed? I saw pictures of the Boston APU battery but not of the main battery. There are just
67 Stitch : Yes. They have been posted in a number of the threads on the 787.
68 KC135Hydraulics : Just found some photos. The battery from ANA looks to have failed very similarly to the battery from JAL! What an eery coincidence these events occure
69 bonusonus : A lot of the latest reports seem to be pointing to overcharging. It's interesting that one failure was in an APU battery and one was in a Main battery
70 KC135Hydraulics : From my experience working with aircraft batteries on the 135/17 both batteries are identical in terms of their charging systems. I do believe the mai
71 nm2582 : Lithium cells only have one typical failure mode, that's why they look the same. Overcharge? they get hot, vent, and burn. Short them out? They get h
72 Post contains links nm2582 : This is a pretty good read on lithium cells: http://www.mpoweruk.com/lithium_failures.htm I can't vouch for the information, but at first blush it all
73 CM : As long as we're asking others to be precise with their words; It's worth pointing out that the actual FAA statement never mentions the word "acciden
74 ADent : Typically during a failure investigation you are looking for root cause. It may be the battery charging software. But during the process you will fin
75 prebennorholm : Absolutely correct! A battery box must be vented. And it shall be vented with outflow only out of the plane. But there is nothing which prevents Boei
76 Post contains links bonusonus : One more battery question. This article says that the batteries are 65 amp-hours each. http://arstechnica.com/business/2013...e-and-yours-may-be-too/?
77 prebennorholm : Yes, there is more to it. Car batteries are 12 volt, 14 point something volt under charge. The same values for the 787 batteries are roughly 29 - 32
78 nm2582 : I believe that the lithium cells are also capable of delivering many more instaneous amps than a lead-acid pack for a given amp-hour rating. Your typi
79 RickNRoll : What has to be fixed?
80 B747forever : Where does UA have all their 787s sitting now? I was spotting at LAX today and could see one parked there.
81 Post contains links stasisLAX : Securaplane, the manufacturer of the battery-charging componets in the 787, is based here in Arizona (Oro Valley, Arizona to be exact - near Tucson).
82 KC135Hydraulics : If a pickup-sized Diesel engine requires upwards of 700 cranking amps to turn over, imagine the instanteous draw from the electric starter on the 787
83 Post contains links bellancacf : Oh Good Grief. What is anyone's take on this? http://victimsoflaw.net/Leon_Securaplane.htm Quote: Mr. Leon was forced under threat of termination (Mar
84 kanban : No argument.. my point was in a small population all serial numbers are close and that may or may not have any significance... I'd be more interested
85 Skydrol : ''Investigators say a battery cell exploded and burned in a lab inside the building'' ''All employees were evacuated as the fire quickly spread throu
86 nm2582 : ***IF*** this is in fact true, that a safety device was knowingly and willfully bypassed but certified and shipped to Boeing as intact and working, t
87 Post contains links WingedMigrator : It may be unrelated, but it strikes oddly close to the matter at hand. Quotes from a US Department of Labor administrative law judge's decision: The
88 flood : Looks like the NTSB is heading down there on Tuesday. Ostrower just tweeted: - NTSB Says Battery That Caught Fire On JAL Boeing 787 Didn't Exceed Des
89 cornutt : Good evening folks, first-time poster, etc. First, full disclosure: I'm an ex-Boeing employee; worked there for 11 years. However, I did not work for
90 sweair : So to repeat my question, would or could a fuel cell fueled by Jet-A be safer than a battery? They create heat, but has there been any serious inciden
91 RickNRoll : They are two distinct aspects of the problem, which both need to be solved. Solving either one alone is not enough. 1) Preventing a battery failing 2
92 packsonflight : You are spot on! This really boils down to three main points: The batteries are flawed, and then the manufacturer has to make a correction, but in th
93 art : "Mr. Leon was forced under threat of termination (March 5. 2007) to ship defective system to aircraft that had a direct short across the failure prot
94 Post contains links and images B2319 : All, My first post on a-net after a long-time lurker. I've an important point to raise a little bit later, however, let me make some general points: O
95 packsonflight : Possibly another Koito industry (The defect aircraft seats) scandal unfolding here.......
96 Post contains images Kaiarahi : I suggest you read post 89 (just 2 before yours) carefully and think about fault trees. You may also wish to note that the regulatory conditions for
97 wjcandee : This Leon whistleblower thing is a sideshow. What is quoted in the previous post [reply 93] is the allegations by Leon, who represented himself, rathe
98 Kaiarahi : Thank you.
99 RickNRoll : If we solved one perfectly, we would not need two. Obviously, we do. What I meant was fixing the current reason for them failing. Overcharging, spike
100 Post contains links rheinwaldner : Overcharging is serious Yes, they did think of overcharging. But they did not consider it to happen. In fact the FAA asked for a solution that would
101 Post contains links jreuschl : http://bit.ly/13RLGvi. Apparently Boeing didn't like the grounding at all. Not a good reaction. Did they not think at the very least they had a bad ba
102 nomadd22 : That's the best way to do it. It's how Tesla handles their packs. All chemistries have that same problem, where a bad cell in a seires starts climbin
103 Stitch : Before the JL and NH incidents, Boeing had pulled some of the Chinese carrier frames out of storage and were performing flight tests on them. So ther
104 frmrcapcadet : Found it useful reading these posts.
105 B747forever : So that bird never left NRT before the grounding.
106 cornutt : That's the preferable way to do it, but it isn't always possible. For example, there is no known technology to contain a vapor explosion in a fuel ta
107 7BOEING7 : I believe it was inbound at the time.
108 Newark727 : Apologies if this has been asked and answered before, but what are the plans of NH and JL for the routes they've started that have only ever used the
109 Post contains links PHX787 : Japan Today, Yomiuri, and AvHerald all saying one thing about ship 829 (BOS)- apparently the resulting fire near the APU was NOT the result of an over
110 Post contains links kanban : per http://avherald.com/h?article=45c377c5&opt=6144 The NTSB reported on Jan 20th 2013 that a first examination of the flight data recorder of JA8
111 WingedMigrator : That much is easy. 32V x 65Ah = 7.5 megajoules
112 Kaiarahi : I think he meant the energy released by the cells letting go.
113 teme82 : I think that is more than enough to cause serious issues with the aircraft. If all the batteries would fail at the same time it would be really bad d
114 gigneil : Totally off topic, but Tesla should design everything everywhere all the time, I think. The level of technology sharing between Tesla and SpaceX is h
115 Post contains images Kaiarahi : Has that been tested? Especially since it took 7 years to design and test the BCU - maybe not continuous effort, but still ....
116 F9animal : The plane is grounded because it is not safe. A fire from a battery is dangerous. Stop downplaying it, because it is what it is. We can try to word it
117 gigneil : The toxins cannot get into the cabin from where they are, but that's another really related to this. NS
118 Cubsrule : Given the length of time that has passed since a grounding, I don't know how it's possible to make any sort of categorical statement about when FAA d
119 mke717spotter : Not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but is LO's 787 still at ORD or has it been ferried back to WAW yet?
120 gigneil : It can't be ferried, it doesn't presently have the legal ability to fly. NS
121 ordwaw : Due to EASA following FAA, no EU registered 787s planes can fly. So SP-LRA is still at ORD.
122 nm2582 : Ok, so an 8 cell pack with 32v as the "never exceed" value: we can assume this pack is simply 8 cells in series; and that Boeing has chosen to set 4V
123 gemuser : Actually this is not true. The relevant National Airworthiness Authority (NAA) COULD issue a Ferry Permit to enable the aircraft to return to its bas
124 Kaiarahi : It does, but not even the FAA knows that yet - that's why there is an investigation and review. It also sometimes grounds planes when they may not me
125 kanban : recognizing that some posts border on trolling, I believe the plane is grounded until the safety of flight is confirmed .. that does not mean it is n
126 flyingbird : I saw it east of terminal 5, 30 minutes ago.
127 Post contains links dcann40 : It looks like it may remain there for a while, because the investigation may take weeks or months instead of days based on today's news. NTSB Rules Ou
128 LTBEWR : Some here have suggested that the lithium cell batteries be replaced with ones of other technologies. Problem is that could mean grounding all 787's f
129 Post contains links iahmark : I honestly don't think Boeing nor the FAA investigators know what the real culprit is, the longer the planes are grounded the more you get that feelin
130 KC135R : Not sure if anyone can shed any light on this, but I have a question - first, let me explain my thought process. I was an aircraft maintainer for the
131 Post contains links iahmark : Batteries may not have been overcharged but not 100% sure... http://www.suntimes.com/business/176...advances-faa-tries-to-keep-up.html
132 wjcandee : Here's my own feeling... The FAA is either going to have to find a face-saving way to get the aircraft back in the air based upon some interim standar
133 RickNRoll : I think the chemical reaction releases a lot more than that.
134 JoeCanuck : That's not necessarily true. Those two batteries might be the only anomalies and the rest of the fleet might have flown for decades without problem.
135 rwessel : I doubt it. Turbines start up slowly and smoothly, totally unlike a diesel, which require a huge push to deal with the compression. Larger diesels, s
136 Rheinbote : Not so easy - if parts of the battery are combusted the released energy is much higher, particluarly in case of a metal fire.
137 Post contains images WingedMigrator : You're probably right. A fully discharged battery isn't charred and burned, so there must be even more chemical potential energy that can be released
138 Skydrol : Battery chemistry is such that a one volt difference for a cell in a battery is a huge difference. There isn't a 'design safety factor'. Consider a c
139 cornutt : That's a good way to state it. Currently the aircraft's fault tree has a node labeled "battery failure" which has no number next to it... the number
140 kalvado : Comparing to original hydraulics example - charge (current) of battery has wider tolerance - like flow or pressure in tubing. Battery voltage is more
141 SonomaFlyer : Well, this will certainly have a bigger impact on NH then airlines such as UA and the longer it goes of course, the greater the impact given NH is alr
142 Aesma : Frankly I don't see who, so many airlines have the thing on order ! And anything that instill fear of flying in people will have effects on the indus
143 b2319 : Honest, polite question: Can you please substantiate this statement, especially the last eight words of my quote? Cheers B-2319
144 RickNRoll : Doesn't it take a long time to get those new numbers?
145 DocLightning : No. Boeing will have killed Boeing. If the aircraft flies again and there is another major issue, either with this battery or with another system, th
146 WingedMigrator : Simple question--sorry if it's been answered before. Since the time for the battery to combust itself totally is far less than the certified ETOPS tim
147 Cubsrule : Maybe. I cited the Toyota recalls in 2009 and 2010 as a good recent example of a different part of DoT running amok, and the stop sale in early 2010
148 Skydrol : This may very well be the case, but battery containment was intended to be the last line of defense against an onboard fire and not be relied upon to
149 cornutt : Maybe. It depends on what the fault mechanism turns out to be. Right now, the biggest problem is that, without knowing what the fault mechanism is, n
150 prebennorholm : It will be impossible to predict such a time frame. Therefore the fix will have to be done differently, by rearranging the branches on the fault tree
151 DocLightning : I would consider those recalls to be nothing in comparison to this. Cars and airliners are not really analogous other than the fact that they are bot
152 Aesma : And car recalls happen all the time.
153 Cubsrule : Stop sales are pretty rare (sort of like groundings). Recalls are more like ADs - frequent and not usually newsworthy (for instance, practically no o
154 sankaps : Fully agree. Besides a stop sale is not the same as a grounding: Toyotas were not taken off the road. It is much more analogous to an AD.
155 Post contains links rotating14 : http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...ents-on-boeings-new-787-dreamliner So I ran across this article that may shed some light on the 787 dilemma. Ju
156 Skydrol : Sorry to go off the 787 topic, but wasn't the root cause found to be the driver side floor mat could bunch up and jam the bottom of the accelerator p
157 Cubsrule : The analogy is important (but imperfect) because of how rare both events are. The fact that NHTSA deals with recalls on a daily basis doesn't really
158 Newark727 : Seems as if a year ahead will give them time enough to plan around this, by then something will have been found to get the type back in the air and t
159 AeroWesty : The end of this article is pretty damning against the FAA: "In other words: the investigation is becoming a lot more complex than expected, which wil
160 Post contains images KELPkid : No doubt that when they find it, 14 CFR Part 25 (transport category certification rules) will be a few paragraphs longer
161 nm2582 : The FAA may be a little behind the times in their knowledge, and lithium cells are pretty new in airliners. I don't think the problem is too complex
162 AeroWesty : The investigation has barely begun. If I'm reading things right, it's still possible that the design is solid, but the execution of it was faulty. Or
163 tdscanuck : Have been travelling, very late to the party. Picking up some stuff from the prior threads: "Am still hoping Tdscanuck or CM will comment in whether o
164 Post contains images wjcandee : It does appear that everyone, the FAA included, has lost some perspective here. The biggest concern of the pundits (and by extension, the public) at t
165 DocLightning : Two aircraft in a 72-hour period had an onboard FIRE (no, I am not backing down from that word). It might have been contained. It might have been slo
166 kanban : there is no yes or no to your question... just a maybe/maybe not... The problem with wanting to state absolutes now before the final answer is avai i
167 rheinwaldner : Thanks, so we now know that a single cell died and did run away thermally. I also have to say that 8 cells is not much for such a high capacity. Why
168 AeroWesty : What you quoted from my post was what I was quoting from the article (the reason why it was enclosed in quote marks and set in italics). Which proble
169 BestWestern : We have to have confidence in the FAA. If they deem the aircraft potentially unsafe to fly, we have to accept their opinion, and stop second guessing
170 airtechy : Having been involved in a lot of engineering to try to determine a design failure mode....but never with a battery...I'm guessing that a sharp enginee
171 CM : Doc, I get it that you do not like what Boeing has said (or has not said) in their public communications about the two battery fires. What you may no
172 WingedMigrator : I cannot believe that even for a second. They might be strongly discouraged from commenting, and even further discouraged by the possibility of inadv
173 CM : Every time the NTSB opens an investigation, the instructions to Boeing are made crystal clear by the NTSB; there can be no public communication on th
174 tdscanuck : Yes, that's a possibility. I disagree...ANA did the right thing. They'd just had a battery fire. Then, very soon after, they got a battery warning an
175 wjcandee : Well...time for the lawyer to do what lawyers do: 49 CFR 831.13 "§ 831.13 Flow and dissemination of accident or incident information. (a) Release of
176 BoeingVista : But the FAA won't put words into Boeings mouth, i.e if Boeing don't say fire the FAA wont insert the word fire into Boeing communication so Doc's poi
177 Post contains links CM : Thanks for that. Also found additional (similar) rules for parties to an investigation here: http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/forms/NTSB_Investigation_Part
178 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Sure you do: you've had one event per N flight hours. You have a rate from that, albeit with a wide confidence interval. Two observations will give y
179 CO953 : So I am wondering what sort of activity, if any, there is in the desert to put mothballed frames back in the air, to make up for lost 787 capacity? Wh
180 Post contains links rwessel : The actual rule is probably in the agreement that the non-NTSB parties have with the NTSB, but check out slide 12 of: http://www.ncdot.gov/transcomm2
181 seahawk : Anybody who callas the FAA morons for that grounding is a moron. An in-flight fire which can not be put down by any means available on the plane is a
182 AeroWesty : United was still a dozen or so years from retiring their stretch DC-8s, which they could substitute on some of the DC-10 routes. One flew the morning
183 CM : Thanks, but not at all necessary. I've learned from more of your posts over the years than I can count. We're all a bit smarter because of others her
184 packsonflight : From the FAA original statement: "The battery failures resulted in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke on two Model 787 airplan
185 Post contains links wjcandee : When you sign the form that CN linked to, you agree to abide the rules in the attached Guidance for Parties, which can be found at: http://www.nata.ae
186 Post contains links seahawk : http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...battery-fires-keeping-li-ion-caged One solution could be putting the batteries in similar bags and adding a Hal
187 Post contains links BoeingVista : You know, no. The linked document says the NTSB will be the only voice but Doc and myself were referring to the Boeing statement on the Boston incide
188 flood : So while the NTSB repeatedly used the term "fire" in their January 8th press release, Boeing was then told by the NTSB to call it a "787 event". Sorr
189 RickNRoll : I guess this is why I seem to be repeating myself. According to the FAA, containment did not work. They say exactly why they think it didn't work. Sm
190 KC135Hydraulics : But the material did not cause damage to any other major system. How was that a failure of the containment?
191 FlyingAY : Because FAA believes that there is a chance that we won't get that lucky the next time. The words from FAA: "These conditions, if not corrected, coul
192 abba : I find your argument basically flawed. The fact that the material didn't actually cause damage to any other system doesn't mean that the containment
193 airmagnac : But no such thing ever happened here For the actual fire-fighting on the ground, I suggest you read the posts by rcair1 But fire-fighting on the grou
194 HAWK21M : Ferry flights have an inbuilt procedure with appropriate permission from Regulatory.
195 abba : I am sorry. I simply do not understand what you write here. I think it is a known fact that batteries do from time to time break down in a way as we
196 rheinwaldner : If contents were spilled the containment has failed. To have spilled content, you don't need a containement. Wrong. The design failed spectacularly t
197 seahawk : I guess you mean rcair1´s post about the low energy stored in the battery or to be more exact you little Jet-A is needed for that amount of energy.
198 RickNRoll : There does seem to be a major disagreement here about something that I would intuitively have thought was very simple to agree on.
199 nomadd22 : No battery is going to have separate charging circuits for each cell, but they can have monitoring circuits for each cell. I'm gathering that Boeing
200 FlyingAY : Fair enough. You were pointing out earlier that there might be differences how we interpret English language. I interpret this in a way that "resulte
201 Aquila3 : I beg to disagree. one event only demonstrates that P(x) >0. That was already assumed, of course. You cannot infer (deduce statistics) about P(x)
202 kalvado : Just out of curiosity - can you give an example of such "ridiculous regulation"? As for me, I like an example of a perfectly ridiculous regulation, w
203 Post contains links PlaneInsomniac : http://www.wordreference.com/definition/containment http://www.wordreference.com/definition/contain http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/containment So far t
204 Post contains images breiz : I hope every reader will take this as a joke, even if deemed a bad one. The B787's batteries are produced by French company Thales. A good conspiracy
205 Cubsrule : This is a fairly common mainstream media criticism of regulators when they are dealing with new technology. It's hardly ever fair, and to the extent
206 Kaiarahi : For information, the actual text (from the Federal Register) of the conditions for design / installation / use of Li-Ion batteries in the 787. WARNING
207 Post contains links and images BlueShamu330s : I have tried to wade through all the threads relating to the Dreamliner, but perhaps I have missed comments about a picture which appears in this link
208 packsonflight : I dont buy this single batch story. Apparently the two burned battery are 30 numbers apart, but how big is a batch? Most likely there are not more th
209 Post contains links rheinwaldner : Wrong. Even the most stupid charger for RC aviation which costs less than 50 bucks has a balancer. Check e.g. this device for roughly double that pri
210 nm2582 : A balancer circuit is NOT inherently the same as a separate charging circuit. The way the charger you referenced works (and in fact all hobby type ch
211 nm2582 : It seems possible that the individual cells in the battery may be commodity items (I don't know, it just seems logical that they might be). By "commo
212 nm2582 : Since there has already been a few references to RC lithium cell use, I'll throw one more out. In RC, we have available what we call "LiPo sacks". Es
213 BoeingVista : I'd be a bit sceptical too if this is how it shook out, lots of separate components will also be produced in different batches and built up into cell
214 RNAVFL350 : According to the NTSB report as seen on the Aviation Herald, the flight data recorder on JA829J indicates that the nominal battery voltage of 32V was
215 tdscanuck : I don't know. If the main battery is lost while the airplane is powered down, you can't power up. If it's powered up, the airplane will continue to r
216 Stitch : Japanese media reported it was removed because when they tried to start the engines using the battery, it didn't work. However, the Ships Battery is
217 nomadd22 : That link says no such thing and there's no "differential currents" supplied to individual cells. In fact the charger is only made for a single lithi
218 cornutt : A nominal voltage of 28V DC (usually specified as 24-32V range) is a standard for aircraft electrical systems. It's something of a compromise between
219 seahawk : So what where the firemen doing in those 40 minutes? Wait to see if the whole plane will catch fire or maybe it was the more likely situation that th
220 nm2582 : From the looks of that PDF, you're correct, that particular charger has no built-in balancing abilities. It's probably a several year old design - al
221 cornutt : IIRC the report said that the data in question came from the flight data recorder. On a modern aircraft, the FDR only records a small subset of the a
222 Kaiarahi : Or that they (meaning Yuasa, Securaplane, Thales - not just Boeing, or even primarily Boeing) have not, given the regulatory conditions: The prototyp
223 Post contains links PHX787 : Hey guys, some more news from Japan today: ANA reportedly cancelled 355 flights and the JMoT will have the Dreamliner grounded until at least* the 27t
224 Stitch : They had to suit up and drive to the plane. They had to determine if there was anyone aboard the aircraft. Once they determined nobody was, that imme
225 Post contains images Kaiarahi : rcair1 (a firefighter) posted an excellent analysis in an earlier thread of the challenges and decisions.
226 seahawk : And how does that conflict with my first post, that no means available on the plane could have handled the fire and that the battery seemed to have b
227 rheinwaldner : The main current goes through all cells in series, that's correct. But the balancing currents still mean, that each cell "sees" an own, independent c
228 nm2582 : On the topic of how long it took to put the fire out: Keep in mind that a lithium "battery" does not burn up all at once (all cells do not burn down a
229 airmagnac : This is aviation. Very little about it is intuitive. Even the basic properties of a wing are not intuitive (see the opening paragraph of W. Langewies
230 Post contains links rheinwaldner : No, it is meaningless. While total voltage is still 32V any cell could produce fireworks. Was this tested within an actual fuselage section? So the b
231 Stitch : First, do we know for a fact that the battery was burning for close to an hour by the time it was removed from the airplane? Yes, people reported a s
232 Post contains images Skydrol : Well, thank you for being honest about your products. Many of us have suspected this for some time, but finding out from an 'insider' confirms it.
233 TheSultanOfWing : Isn't the above pretty significant? FH
234 BlueShamu330s : I'm please someone else asked; I'm hopeful someone might yet be able to shed some light on it ! Rgds
235 Post contains images Stitch : Electrolyte solution was vented out of the EE bay and was deposited on the side of the fuselage, so this might be what they're referring to and showi
236 CM : It would be significant if it were true. However, the JTSB already released a statement saying the streaking on the outside if the fuselage near the
237 seahawk : There I do respectfully disagree. The plane at Boston showed burn marks outside the box and the fire was monitored and probably controlled by the fir
238 Humanitarian : Correct - not having an ashtray inside the lav is a 'no-go' item: You cannot MEL it. I ran into this scenario more than once. It can be missing from
239 CM : There are no other batteries in the rack, or the aft bay at all, for that matter.
240 Kaiarahi : What other batteries are in the aft bay?
241 Post contains links AeroWesty : The article you linked doesn't use the word "stranded", it uses the word "affected". ANA has been reaccommodating passengers on flights with replacem
242 justloveplanes : I have to agree. The electrolyte leakout must have been a surprise (burnout containment seemed to work), I can't imaging spilling on to the floor was
243 Post contains images airmagnac : Well now, I would have to slightly correct your interpretation of that sentence becau... ... ... oh hell, whatever
244 Stitch : Yes it did. In a very small area, mostly where the battery box was in direct contact. So thermal heating of the containment box resulted in thermal h
245 Post contains images Braybuddy : I think we're beginning to enter the realm of Alice in Wonderland in these threads: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,
246 kanban : ditto if the information removes, clarifies or indicates a path toward resolution, it is hardly meaningless... however I get your point that this tid
247 Kaiarahi : When a doctor says "transmural myocardial infarction", that's exactly what s/he means, and s/he's distinguishing it from a subendocardial infarction.
248 Post contains images Stitch : Napoleon Bonaparte is quoted as having said "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." Though in this thread, I be
249 Kaiarahi : Ah yes. The second state of knowledge is knowing what you don't know.
250 Post contains images rcair1 : I agree with you - but I would point out that in my career of responding to car crashes, I've seen a dramatic improvement from terms of survivablity
251 HAWK21M : Was this the Equipment cooling rack blower outlet?.
252 abba : I understand. However, is two incidents statistically enough to establish "too often"? You know there are people who win mark 6 twice even if it is v
253 art : Once knew a ship designer who worked on offshore oil rig designs for North Sea use. He told me that the structures were designed to resist a "hundred
254 rcair1 : I'm not a statistician - though I've used statics in production quality tests - but I don't think so. I think we can conclude 'something' happened tw
255 DocLightning : We're in violent agreement. I was responding to someone saying that the FAA failed to detect it and I was pointing out that it's actually the OEM's j
256 dfambro : WingedMigrator is correct, you can calculate confidence interval for a rate from a single event. You can calculate it for zero events. Think of it th
257 Post contains images airmagnac : Yes, sorry, I meant to include the proper link in my post but I totally forgot. And I can't find the post I meant anymore. I'd expect FAA decsion-mak
258 Post contains links seahawk : Those where the damaged one is missing : http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2013/01/08/2020087640.jpg Flammable liquid inside a bay full of electronics is
259 rcair1 : I think this is essentially what the containment system in the 787 is intended to do. They probably do more than this - they probably do try to 'cont
260 DocLightning : Frankly, I'm not sure I would. I want them making a calm and rational decision. Believe me, as a physician I've made plenty of important (life-and-de
261 JoeCanuck : My point was more about how safety isn't an absolute, not that safety improvements shouldn't continue. I've read reports where the addition of so man
262 Cubsrule : I don't think you meant this . . . did you mean that until a cause is found, the grounding should continue? I'd agree with that statement. It's diffi
263 abba : I do not think that this it is big MAY - rather it is a clear no. Still I do not understand why - given the fact that batteries from time to time bre
264 CM : There are no batteries in the photo you have linked. The only battery which ever would appear in this photo is the one which is missing. There are no
265 Post contains images DocLightning : No no. The only acceptable cause is the one I want it to be. Yes, your wording is better than mine. Because that containment system shouldn't have HA
266 rcair1 : Without seeing the actual incident report from BFD/MFD I don't think you can conclude these items. (and I have not seen it). From a fire fighting per
267 abba : OK - If I understand you correctly, batteries are supposed to almost never break down!? And the fact that they did - and not only once (one swallow d
268 Post contains links iowaman : As this thread is getting quite lengthy please continue the discussion here: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4 (by iowaman Jan 21 2013 in Civil Aviation)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
FAA Grounds 787 posted Wed Jan 16 2013 15:07:34 by brons2
LAN Grounds 787 Fleet posted Wed Jan 16 2013 18:00:15 by SCL767
FAA Grounds Air Tahoma posted Thu Jan 15 2009 16:50:39 by LAXintl
FAA Grounds Hawaii Mokulele Air For One Day posted Wed Oct 22 2008 19:09:06 by LAXintl
FAA Demands 787 Connectivity Security Assurances posted Sat Dec 29 2007 08:23:34 by BestWestern
787 Part Deliveries And Virtual Assembly Animation posted Mon May 21 2007 00:49:09 by IAD787
FAA Grounds Federal Fire Fighting Planes. posted Fri Apr 29 2005 03:44:36 by Aa777jr
AC Orders 777 And 787 (Part 2) posted Mon Apr 25 2005 23:12:26 by RootsAir
FAA Grounds EMB-145 Autopilot posted Fri Oct 15 1999 18:06:15 by DeltaAir
787 Production/Delivery Thread Part 13 posted Mon Jan 14 2013 13:08:53 by iowaman