Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Grounds 787 Part 5  
User currently offlineiowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4435 posts, RR: 6
Posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 34408 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Please continue the discussion here as the previous thread was quite lengthy.

I politely ask members to avoid personal attacks and flamebait to keep the quality of our forums up. Part 4 required a lot of moderating deletions due to these issues.

Previous thead:
FAA Grounds 787 Part 4 (by iowaman Jan 21 2013 in Civil Aviation)

[Edited 2013-01-23 12:08:18]

267 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 969 posts, RR: 38
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 34355 times:

Quote:

OK, I am sure that there are a dozen reasons why what I am about to suggest is a horrible idea,

We all know that different objects can be deployed from the aircraft in-flight. RAT, landing gear ect.

Most of the concern centers on "battery fire while x hours from possible landing". presumably over open ocean or artic landscape.

While this is not an 'easy' fix, what about having the batteries in future designs be in a belly location where they can be jettisoned? The most contained battery fire is the one that is 30K below and 10 miles back. This would require breakaway connectors and some additional seams on the exterior surface....

Bessides the fact the FAA has a really really bad aversion to parts coming off aircraft especially over inhabited areas... no one wants a 50+ pound object coming through the roof of their house.

the fault tree for the jettison system would have to preclude a jettison failure from causing its own incident especially if it failed during takeoff/landing or during an engine failure etc where the battery was required to provide standby power to continue safe flight...

adding a bunch more complexity to a system is rarely a good way to mitigate risk


User currently offlineflyingcello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 34314 times:

What about a very brief overview of the current position to start the new thread off?

User currently offlinealfablue From Spain, joined Jan 2013, 43 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 34254 times:

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 2):

What about a very brief overview of the current position to start the new thread off?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...to-flight-20130123,0,1747659.story


QUOTE:

"The fact that such electrical system-related incidents would occur consecutively, purely from my perspective, could not have been expected. We are finding it difficult trying to figure out what kind of investigative stance we should take."

The investigation has also renewed scrutiny on the FAA's 2007 decision to let Boeing use a highly flammable battery technology on the 787. A U.S. Senate committee will hold a hearing in coming weeks to examine aviation safety oversight and the FAA's decision, a congressional aide said on Tuesday.

"I can't really say anything about the timeframe of the investigation. The NTSB is really the only authorized authority in the U.S. to talk about this investigation and they made some recent statements, but I can't speculate on timeframe," Sinnett said Wednesday in recorded remarks supplied to Reuters.

FAA Administrator Michael Huerta, appearing at the same event, said the review was looking at the 787's certification, manufacturing and assembly processes, and that he could not speculate on an end date.

For at least one Chinese customer, the uncertainty about the Dreamliner's production and delivery schedule has meant delays in launching new routes.

"Frankly, it's a little disappointing the aircraft has been delayed so many times," said Chen Feng, chairman of Hainan Airlines Co Ltd parent HNA Group, in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos. "We still think it's a good aircraft, but this has had some effect on our planning."

AlfaBlue


User currently onlineredzeppelin From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 34214 times:

Just checked Boeing's stock price and was pleasantly surprised to see that it has help up pretty well through the grounding so far. Looks to be above their 6-month average, and has actually been trending up through the day today. So the market hasn't lost much confidence yet.


Flown: DL,OS,NZ,UN,VV,NW,AA,UA,HP,TZ,AS,AF,KL,SK,WS,AZ,OK; op by OO,MQ,XJ,9E,G7,EV,QX,RP
User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 321 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 34052 times:

Quote:
Many of the people that share this attitude are shameless fans of BA, engineers or designers
Quote:
The incompetence and infallibility complex of pilots are what have caused most noteworthy crashes of commercial airliners in the last 50 years.
.

Enough of this confrontational BS !! Please !

You people make it sound like engineers and pilots are in a permanent war against each other. That's not true, they are the two sides to the same coin.
The primary job of the engineer is to design and build an airplane that will not put the pilot in a precarious situation
The pilot's primary job is to not bring his airplane into a dangerous position.

But both groups are made of fallible human beings. BOTH OF THEM.

So the engineers have to also design the plane to continue to work in case of a failure. Either introduced in the design & manufacturing, or by the pilot.
And pilots have to be able to keep their arcraft out of a mess even if they make a mistake or if the plane is not functioning nominally.

IOW the pilots and the engineers have to work TOGETHER. And when they fail, when the dreaded accident happens, then they fail TOGETHER. Point me to one single accident which involves only the design, or only the pilots ; I don't know one.

Pilots and engineers have been complementing each other, have been for a hundred years, and will continue to be so. And the result is that we have thousands of aircraft flying all around the globe, transporting each day the equivalent of the population of London, with a very good level of safety. Please keep that in mind before you start another "it's his fault" - "no, it's his fault" argument worthy of a 3 year old. Or before you start accusing people of being incompetant morons, or corrupt greedy bags of s**t.

Both pilots and engineers have highly complicated decisions to make, in their respective areas of competence. Both use an advanced set of knowledge & skills. But in the end both are working to make aviation as economical as possible while maintaining a high level of safety. And as I said, so far the results are rather good.

It is normal to not understand the complex situations they study, and the resulting choices they make. And it is your right to choose not to try to understand.
But if you so choose, please refrain from confontation and mud throwing against those who prefer to understand and solve the problem

Rant over. Carry on.

[Edited 2013-01-23 13:21:20]


One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1356 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 33674 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 1):
no one wants a 50+ pound

ah- em - a 50+ pound flaming object.....

This....

Quoting alfablue (Reply 3):
QUOTE:

"The fact that such electrical system-related incidents would occur consecutively, purely from my perspective, could not have been expected. We are finding it difficult trying to figure out what kind of investigative stance we should take."

is not this....

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 2):
What about a very brief overview of the current position to start the new thread off?

Keep reading...

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 5):
You people make it sound like engineers and pilots are in a permanent war against each other.

Boy - I'm in trouble. I'm both a pilot and an engineer. And I have a number of engineer friends who are pilots. On top of that I'm a fire fighter who deals with failures of both pilots and engineers. Boy - I must by skitzo.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 5):
Enough of this confrontational BS !! Please !

Thank you for your rant.

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 2):
What about a very brief overview of the current position to start the new thread off?

The current position - of the investigation, not the a.net flame fest.

After 2 incidents involving Li-Ion battery failures on Boeing 787's in 9 days, the FAA issued an order grounding 787 flights while investigation into the cause and effect of the failures is being conducted.

The JAL incident involved the APU battery and occurred while the aircraft was parked in Boston. The battery, for reasons unknown, failed and apparently went into a thermal runaway condition that caused it to burn within its containment vessel. The battery was removed and extinguished by fire fighters.

In the ANA incident the aircraft was in flight and pilots received a warning of a failure in the main "ship" backup battery and detected an unusual order. The pilots made an emergency landing and the a/c was evacuated. Investigation showed the ship battery, again for unknown reasons, had failed in a mode that caused it to burn in it's containment structure. I'm unaware of any action taken by fire crews in the ANA case. In the ANA case, electrolyte from the battery escaped the containment - though it is unclear from public information the extent of that (lots of statements, not much data).

The two batteries are identical, but located in different parts of the a/c. The APU battery is used only to start the APU when other sources are not available. The ship battery is used for backup when other sources fail. It is not used in normal flight operations.

The batteries consist of 8 Li-Ion cells manufactured by Yuasa and packaged by Thales to Boeing's specification - including a containment structure. The containment system also includes a smoke evacuation system for the two bays where the batteries are located to prevent smoke from getting into the cabin during flight. That system operated by causing air flow from the cabins through the bays and out of the a/c via outflow valves. In the case smoke is detected in either bay - the system is re-configured to increase that flow rate. That reconfiguration will not occur automatically in the in the presence of smell (a bad odor will not cause it), but it can be configured that way by pilots.

At the current point - the investigation continues. Data from DFDR on the ships indicate neither battery was overcharged. leading to some speculation that the cause was a defect in the batteries themselves. However, no findings have been released and we really don't know the detail that the FAA or other agencies are looking at.

------
Believe it or not - that is about it. We had 2 battery fires. Neither appeared to have endangered the a/c - however, concern about the battery, charging system, containment, etc. is such that the FAA is concerned and grounded the aircraft until the incidents can be fully understood and it can be ascertained that there is or is not a flight safety issue. The grounding obviously presumes there is and is the safe course of action. At such point as analysis reveals what happened and the potential impact of the incidents becomes clear, such action as is deemed needed will be ordered by way of AD, completed and the a/c will, presumably, return to flight.

Neither I - nor anybody on this forum, or probably the FAA/Boeing/NTSB yet know the cause/effect or actions required.

It is hard to believe the actual facts that lie behind 5 threads is that brief. The vast majority of discussion here is in the form of people expressing various opinions and adding their bit of knowledge about systems and actions.



rcair1
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 33619 times:

I am now getting quite skeptical about the new UA DEN-NRT 787 launch date for March 31. Something tells me (a gut feeling) that this may not happen. I hope I will be very, very wrong.


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 33615 times:

Quoting alfablue (Reply 3):
The investigation has also renewed scrutiny on the FAA's 2007 decision to let Boeing use a highly flammable battery technology on the 787. A U.S. Senate committee will hold a hearing in coming weeks to examine aviation safety oversight and the FAA's decision, a congressional aide said on Tuesday.

And yet, no one has come forward showing where there has been significant fire damage to anything beyond the battery itself, except for smoke residue on the belly of the NH bird (which many speculated was actually battery electrolyte?). I know the investigation is still young, and we're being spoon fed pictures. I will reiterate what I said in the (now locked) #4 thread, the picture of the battery box before it was opened looks very similar to what I saw when a coworker destroyed a lead acid battery once in a GA plane, by charging a 12 volt battery with 28 volts DC. In that instance, battery acid boiled out and even dripped down out of the engine cowling. Since no one turned on the master switch in the hapless plane, the mechanic was able to put a new battery and battery box in the same day, and clean up all the battery acid, and had the plane flying again the same day.

It is looking, at this point, like the problem is in the battery itself. I'm guessing a long term solution is going to be more monitoring circuits to monitor the health of the individual cells in the LiIon batery, especially since in both incidents, the safety boards (NTSB + Japanese counterpart) are now saying no overvoltage occurred during charging.

[Edited 2013-01-23 13:49:14]


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1385 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 33575 times:

From previous thread:

Quoting PITingres (Reply 252):
While I don't dispute your statement as such, the fact does remain that up until the grounding event, the dispatch reliability for the 787 fleet was reported as being on par with other new type introductions, specifically the 777 numbers. Are you suggesting that those 787 numbers were false / incorrect? or is this just an "I told you so"? (which might be immodest but there's no rule against it!)

Keep in mind the claimed DR applies to the 787 fleet worldwide, whereas mcdu was specifically referring to UA. Having tracked UA's fleet for the past 40 days or so, I don't see how they could have attained a DR rate of over 93% during the time, if that. I imagine the folks at UA cringe whenever Boeing touts their DR figures.


User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 969 posts, RR: 38
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 33483 times:

Boeing quotes are fleetwide dispatch reliability and would include all 50 airplanes including UA

User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21588 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 33281 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 6):
Believe it or not - that is about it. We had 2 battery fires. Neither appeared to have endangered the a/c - however, concern about the battery, charging system, containment, etc. is such that the FAA is concerned and grounded the aircraft until the incidents can be fully understood and it can be ascertained that there is or is not a flight safety issue. The grounding obviously presumes there is and is the safe course of action. At such point as analysis reveals what happened and the potential impact of the incidents becomes clear, such action as is deemed needed will be ordered by way of AD, completed and the a/c will, presumably, return to flight.

This is where I don't agree with your analysis.

The FAA only grounded the aircraft AFTER the JAA did so. It was not out of concern, but out of CYA. There is no other answer I can see, because despite the two incidents happening within 2 weeks, they were very different, and neither contributed to a "safety of flight" situation that anyone can prove. One wasn't even flying for goodness sake.

But the FAA is not going to be upstaged by the JAA, plain and simple. And the JAA will not take the risk of failing to act after the nuclear regulatory agency in Japan was shown to be a miserable failure of an agency, and considering the public black-eyes regarding safety concerning automobiles (including battery fires) and aircraft seats from Japan over the last few years.

It is my belief that had the JAA not grounded the 787, the FAA would not have and 787s would be flying safely today. They would have continued with their already announced investigation WITHOUT grounding the aircraft, possibly recommending the testing of all batteries.

But now what? The FAA can't say "we checked things out and will allow the aircraft to fly while XYZ happens" because they haven't defined what they need to do so they have no idea how they will know it's finished.

I believe Boeing will have to sue the FAA to get the 787 back in the air, with a federal judge enjoining the FAA to prove imminent threat to life to keep the grounding alive, or to lift the grounding. After all, if it's simply a maintenance nightmare and not a threat to life, that's between Boeing and the airlines. We don't ground other hanger queens simply because they go tech more often.

But then, would any other agency around the world follow if the ban were lifted by the courts? Surely not the EU, as the damage this will do to Boeing is in the best interest of the EU. Maybe the JAA as they will feel pressure from ANA and JAL to lift the ban anyway.

Maybe the FAA can say "replace the main backup batteries with tested good batteries and remove all APU batteries" until things are better understood. This action alone would cut the risk of battery fire by some factor greater than 2, and since there is no evidence a battery fire would cause anything but a diversion, the risk is already low, so it would be over twice as low as before.

But there are egos involved, and a lot of CYA still to occur, so it could be a long grounding.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 33158 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 6):

I just wanted to say, thank you for the recap of the situation. I've been wanting to know what's been going on, but with the flame wars through over two hundred posts per thread in four threads now, it was all but impossible to get the information without spending hours I don't have sifting through the wars to try and get the info, and I didn't want to start another thread to ask. So, thank you sir.  



ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlineStressedOut From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 33078 times:

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 5):
Enough of this confrontational BS !! Please !





I was being dramatic/sarcastic to illustrate how ridiculous his statement was. It is absurd to denigrate engineers and designers with very little reason. I work with engineers and pilots and find his statements a bit rich.

[Edited 2013-01-23 14:47:57]

User currently offlinerobsaw From Canada, joined Dec 2008, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 33033 times:

Given all the rhetoric, I fully expect Boeing and its partners will come up with a solution. However, I also suspect given the positions of some people, those same people will never be satisfied that ANY Li-ion battery can EVER be safe on an aircraft.

Absolutely safe life only exists in fantasy - reality always has risks. If it weren't for the willingness of the technologically innovative to take life-threatening risks there would be no such thing as an aircraft today.


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1385 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 33029 times:

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 10):
Boeing quotes are fleetwide dispatch reliability and would include all 50 airplanes including UA

Yes, that's my point - their figures represent the average for all 50 frames. But UA and ANA aren't operating their fleets with similar DR rates. They're nowhere close. ANA's numbers are driving up the worldwide average considerably.


User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 321 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 32919 times:

Quoting StressedOut (Reply 13):
I was being dramatic/sarcastic to illustrate how rediculous his statement was.

If so, you have my apologies. I was a little violent there.
But I wasn't aiming at anyone in particular ; I removed the names of the posters in the quotes because this is a general observation. I just couldn't hold it in after reading through the entire part 4 thread in one go. So I stand by my post



Quoting rcair1 (Reply 6):

Boy - I'm in trouble. I'm both a pilot and an engineer

Same here

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 6):
On top of that I'm a fire fighter who deals with failures of both pilots and engineers. Boy - I must by skitzo.

Wow, you really must be totally nuts ! 
But as crazy as you may be, your posts are full of sense, and are highly appreciated.



One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 969 posts, RR: 38
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 32873 times:

Quoting flood (Reply 15):
Yes, that's my point - their figures represent the average for all 50 frames. But UA and ANA aren't operating their fleets with similar DR rates. They're nowhere close. ANA's numbers are driving up the worldwide average considerably.

not surprising since ANA has a third of the existing 787 fleet and has operated it the longest.

UA didn't start service until Nov 2012. They didnt even get half their fleet until late Dec. Not to worry, they will catch up.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7975 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 32647 times:

From Stitch in the other thread: "Well if they believe it's the battery, and not the 787's charging system, then I don't see why the 787 needs to remain grounded once "known good" batteries can be identified and procedures can be put into place to test them to ensure that they remain "known good".

While the 787 did have two battery incidents in about as many weeks, many seem to forget that the fleet had over 100,000 hours of revenue flying without a battery incident. JA804A - the NH plane - had flown for a full year without a battery incident. Three other NH planes had flown for over a year without a battery incident. And JL had two or three planes with nine months of service without a battery incident."


Well at this point en Boeing needs to contact Yuasa and rigorously test the good batch, get them installed, and proceed with their lives.

At the same time though: has anyone else confirmed or denied if the batteries were just from one faulty batch?



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 32615 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 18):
Well at this point en Boeing needs to contact Yuasa and rigorously test the good batch, get them installed, and proceed with their lives.

Your obsession with Yuasa is tiring. It is too early to launch a probe, "rigorously test," or throw the book at Yuasa.

First, the problem needs to be isolated. Rigorous testing won't accomplish anything at all if nobody knows what needs to be tested for.



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 offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 32574 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 18):

Well at this point en Boeing needs to contact Yuasa and rigorously test the good batch, get them installed, and proceed with their lives.

At the same time though: has anyone else confirmed or denied if the batteries were just from one faulty batch?

We don't have any firm information that the batteries involved were from the same production run or "batch." NTSB did say the JL incident was not an "overcharging" incident. We are getting only dribbles of information and some of that information isn't exactly phrased so its open to interpretation which means we don't know squat yet.

Investigations are ongoing on three continents at the moment. Some media "sources" implied Boeing had some extra procedures/checks/inspection routines ready and I'm sure has dozens of engineers working around the clock to solve the issues.

As I've stated before, the FAA won't lift its order until the cause of the battery "thermal events" are known and there are fixes in place from a manufacturing or design standpoint plus testing whatever fixes or additional checks are recommended.


User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 926 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 32389 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
The FAA only grounded the aircraft AFTER the JAA did so.

Not correct.

ANA and JAL voluntarily grounded their aircraft, but the Japanese Transport Ministry mandatorily grounded the B787 only after the FAA did so.


User currently offlineblueflyer From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Jan 2006, 4186 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 32349 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 6):
Believe it or not - that is about it.

I thought I read in the early days after the grounding that the FAA was also going to review the certification process for the electrical system. Has that been dropped, or were these statements made by uninformed officials who wanted to look like they knew something?

Other than that question, thanks for the summary. I am learning more about batteries than I thought I ever would, and it actually has some relevance for my work as it turns out, even though the only thing I send flying is paper airplanes.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
The FAA only grounded the aircraft AFTER the JAA did so.

The JAA grounded the 787? I thought ANA decided to ground theirs, followed by JAL, or are you implying they did so not of their own initiative but under penalty of the JAA officially ordering them to?



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinejreuschl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 552 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 32266 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 18):
At the same time though: has anyone else confirmed or denied if the batteries were just from one faulty batch?

It is believed that the two bad batteries were 3 serial numbers apart, since the battery in the ANA incident was recently replaced, and the JAL airplane was less than a month old.

Boeing can hope the problem is as "simple" as that, but someone needs to figure out why they failed and find out if other recent batteries have the same problem.


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1356 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 32257 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
This is where I don't agree with your analysis.
The FAA only grounded the aircraft AFTER the JAA did so. It was not out of concern, but out of CYA. There is no other answer I can see, because despite the two incidents happening within 2 weeks, they were very different, and neither contributed to a "safety of flight" situation that anyone can prove. One wasn't even flying for goodness sake.

Wasn't really trying to analyze - trying to elucidate the status.
But...

Wrong.

JCAB (not JAA - there is no JAA) issued the ground order after the FAA issued it's emergency AD.
ANA did voluntarily ground it's fleet - but I can't even tell if that was before the FAA official order.
The FAA was the first to issue the order - other national agencies followed.

Which makes the rest of your post more or less pointless.



rcair1
25 rcair1 : It could be. Certainly the news about Congress/Senate holding hearings mentions that. BTW - have we ever seen anything meaningful come out of congres
26 Aesma : The "certification debate" is today's news, but before the grounding (before the second incident) there was an investigation into the 787 electrical
27 tdscanuck : How's it CYA when they did it first? JCAB acted to comply with the FAA emergency AD *after* it was issued. I'll eat my hat if that happens. This is a
28 Post contains links flood : It's not surprising that ANA is driving up the average and I have no doubt UA will catch up sooner or later. Point remains, UA shouldn't have to be c
29 mcdu : And how many hours between the two battery failure incidents?
30 PHX787 : Well they are the battery maker remember. besides the occasional windshield issues I don't see anything else holding back the 787. And about the Yuas
31 squad55 : Out of curiosity, what happens to the 787 pilots during the grounding? Are they still being paid etc?
32 BoeingVista : Worst idea ever! Think of the liability that Boeing would assume, would insurers even be willing to cover this risk? Plus are Boeing going to sue EAS
33 Post contains links prebennorholm : I stumbled over this document from an Airbus conference about lithium battery safety almost a year ago: http://www.multimedia-support.net/fl...-safety
34 SonomaFlyer : Q: Out of curiosity, what happens to the 787 pilots during the grounding? Are they still being paid etc? A: most if not all 787 pilots are still certi
35 PassedV1 : I can only reply as to the United Pilots, but yes, they are still getting paid. Pilots have a monthly minimum gurantee which at United is 70 hours/mo
36 Post contains links AeroWesty : For those looking for official news, the next NTSB update regarding the JAL 787 Boston investigation will be at a press conference scheduled for 2:30p
37 keegd76 : BA 38 - FOHE design allowed ice to clog the system - Engineering Issue, no pilot error; Tenerife - Pilot took off without clearance - Pilot Error, no
38 trex8 : NH and JL voluntarily grounded their planes and the FAA then followed. There was never a Japanese government edict to ground prior to the airlines do
39 Post contains links blrsea : Today's seattle times has this report. Looks like the plane worked as designed. However, the electrolyte getting splayed inside the electronics bay is
40 sankaps : Quick question, and apologies if it has been answered already in the 5 threads on this topic: Besides the 787 and A380, are there any other commercial
41 Tristarsteve : The main and APU batteries (all 4 of them) on the A380 are Ni-cad
42 UALWN : The thread is about the grounding of the 787 by the FAA, now in its second week. This is the first FAA grounding since 1979, so it's a big deal. And
43 rcair1 : The FAA grounding 'followed' ANA and JAL voluntary action in the temporal sense. I think the FAA made their own decision. Many commercial airliners u
44 frmrcapcadet : As I recall hearings on these sorts of things tend to be an official briefing. There is no intention on finding new things. Legislatures likely ask i
45 LTC8K6 : If I recall correctly, that was not the same battery.
46 planesmart : 'The two batteries are identical, but located in different parts of the a/c. The APU battery is used only to start the APU when other sources are not
47 Post contains links trex8 : Forgive me if I missed this in the several hundred posts on the subject but maybe this incident is of some relevance to the issue.Certainly scary if t
48 Post contains links and images Stitch : It's been raised a number of times, but with so many posts and threads... It should be noted the battery was connected to prototype equipment and not
49 rcair1 : This event has been discussed widely - and there are a number of things you need to look at to fully understand the issue. For instance, reports that
50 Post contains links AeroWesty : Public confidence in the 787 once it's back in the air has been one of the themes in these threads. During the UA 4Q earnings call held today, UA CEO
51 Post contains images glideslope : I think it's time for nice big " Group Hug " in here, eh? Come on, I'll start:
52 Post contains links Scipio : NTSB says "much more work" is needed to determine the cause of the B787 fires: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...amliner-ntsb-idUSL1N0ATEMT201301
53 BoeEngr : The two battery incidents were 9 days apart. The JAL Boston incident was January 7 and the NH incident was January 16.
54 Post contains links Stitch : I came in on the Q&A part of the NTSB event, but the spokeswoman did note that the JL APU battery had entered thermal runaway and there were short
55 SonomaFlyer : This is precisely why there is no "quick fix" to this problem; NTSB, Boeing and its suppliers do not yet know why the incidents occurred. The FAA wil
56 AeroWesty : Having watched most of the press conference, I have to agree with that quote. The gist of it for me was that barring anything leaping off the page at
57 n471wn : I agree that this will take some time and if I were the airlines involved I would be looking for some additional lift capacity......not many 777's are
58 Post contains images KELPkid : Any details as to what did not work as intended, and why? Just curious
59 Stitch : I do not believe the NTSB has yet determined that. All they know is that a fire should not have happened, but did, so something didn't work as design
60 ComeAndGo : Apparently they used a lithium ion battery of older design. Lithium cobalt oxide which is more prone to thermal runaway.
61 KELPkid : IIRC, though, the battery box and E&E bays are designed to contain the fire if the battery catches fire. But some stuff (like electrolyte) might
62 Stitch : That is correct. Boeing evidently did add manganese to the mixture to greatly improve the useful life of the battery. If they also add nickel, that w
63 SonomaFlyer : That raises an interesting question if adding nickel (for example) to improve the stability of the battery, would they they have to completely redo t
64 tdscanuck : Inflight monitoring of the container temperature won't help you much...once you see the temperature signature of thermal runaway of the battery it's
65 jreuschl : UA is probably in the best position to wait for the 787 to return vs. the other carriers, correct?
66 SonomaFlyer : I suspect so given the small number they have and the size of their wide body fleet. It may mean delaying the start of the DEN-NRT route but UA is in
67 Post contains links Scipio : Flightglobal also reporting now: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...in-jal-787-battery-failure-381464/ The FT also has an article on the NTSB pres
68 jreuschl : Does the A350 have a similar battery setup? At least Airbus will be able to learn from what mistakes were made here.
69 AeroWesty : I don't know what I misunderstood then, the FlightGlobal article has similar wording: "Another critical part of the investigation is considering the
70 Humanitarian : The NTSB typically takes one year to make a determination in an accident or incident. It was the FAA that grounded the 787 with the AD -- not the NTSB
71 Viscount724 : And if A.net had been around in 1947/48 when the DC-6 was grounded for 4 months about 6 months after it went into service, there probably would have
72 RickNRoll : I think that's how I understood it.
73 Revelation : The Reuters link above gives more of what she is thinking of:
74 gemuser : The FAA has not issued an AD requiring action "before further flight" since 1979? Really? Because that's what we have got here with the B787 Gemuser
75 Post contains images par13del : The NTSB mandate, it has always been thus, their only concern is safety. There may well come a time when the FAA looks at the NTSB and advises them t
76 ComeAndGo : No it's not. The ATR 72 was grounded in the 90's for their icing issues that crashed one plane and almost crashed another one.
77 macc : How will the grounding implicate production? At what time will Boeing be forced to stop assembly?
78 Stitch : At the moment, Boeing is continuing production at the normal rate and is continuing to ramp towards 10 per month. I guess in theory when they run out
79 Scipio : From a logistical viewpoint, this is correct. From an economic perspective, at some (earlier) point it no longer makes sense to build airplanes witho
80 UALWN : Correct. I should have specified "jet." In any case, no a.net in 1994 either...
81 Post contains links RickNRoll : It looks like at least one airline expects a long downtime. SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777 (by sanflyr Jan 23 2013 in Civil Aviation)
82 prebennorholm : Correct. The FAA grounded ATR-72 following the American Eagle accident in 1994. And demanded improved anti icing boots before re-certification by the
83 Wisdom : At this point, if I were Boeing I would hedge the risk and start looking at a plan B involving good old lead-acid batteries and at STCeing it, with li
84 par13del : Well, it will also take up a hell of a lot of money to have suppliers and partners stop production and lay off workers, pay additinal and new penatli
85 BoeingVista : It shouldn't, certification criteria are agreed between the OEM and certifying authority before the test campaign begins, the aircraft is built to be
86 RickNRoll : "Good old" in this case would be Ni-Cad. The A380 still uses Ni_Cad for it's main batteries, which surprises me, I would have thought Ni-Mh would be b
87 Aesma : I did a little searching and from what I found the ATR was not grounded. It was banned from flying in icing conditions. Some airlines chose to not us
88 Stitch : I guess it depends on how far along the subs are with their own production ramps. They're not going to want to cut back on their own shipsets because
89 RickNRoll : The economic situation is of no concern to the FAA.
90 Stitch : I expect that is not the case. The FAA will want to ensure that the 787 will not crash if the battery catches fire and burns for whatever length it's
91 Post contains images DocLightning : Oh, fantastic. The politicians are here! Everything will be OK now! Without at least ETOPS 120, the 787 is worthless for the vast majority of routes
92 frmrcapcadet : I wonder if airframe manufacturers should not have cooperated on battery/charging, controlling and had at least two different systems. Cooperative eff
93 B777LRF : On the contrary, I would say: The FAA is both the promoter and regulator of civil aviation in the US, and therefore the financial well being of the i
94 BoeingVista : While it was certified to that criteria the 787 clearly does not meet the criteria it was certified to.. But could the FAA / 787 debacle affect the A
95 tdscanuck : What that "It's not clear why the containment did not work as envisaged" or "It's not clear from the NTSB statement why they don't think the containm
96 Revelation : I'm pretty sure some of those hundreds of engineers Tom mentioned are certainly looking at such a Plan B as well as C, D, and so on. There's too much
97 AeroWesty : Then I don't see what the issue was that you brought up with the following post of mine:
98 DocLightning : If I were a customer, I would under no circumstances accept a frame that would not do what it said it would do in its contract without a major revisi
99 rcair1 : Which is a real drag.... I may get to go to Japan this summery - and DEN-NRT on a 787 is high on my list.... At the same time, because much of the an
100 tdscanuck : It's the idea that the NTSB will "methodically go through...certification...with a fine-toothed comb". Although the 787 certification process is bein
101 Scipio : I do not expect the 1979 scenario to be repeated, for several reasons: - nothing points in the direction of an easy-to-fix maintenance or handling pr
102 Wisdom : Ni-Cad is good technology too, but it's easier, cheaper and faster to tailor-design a lead-acid. This is also likely to be an interim solution, so it
103 Post contains images prebennorholm : Maybe. Airbus has said very little about this whole Li-Ion issue, (I would guess that they want to talk as little as possible). But here is what one
104 Stitch : The containment system failed to contain the electrolytes, but that should be fixable with either a larger containment vessel and/or a better venting
105 Scipio : "She said the battery had spewed out very hot, molten electrolytes, despite the presence of numerous systems meant to prevent such an event." "We hav
106 PHX787 : Thanks for the article. Thanks for the correction. So back to practicality- anyone have any guesses or estimations when the 787 is allowed to fly aga
107 2175301 : I would expect the grounding to be in the range of 1-2 months, perhaps 3 months; based on the following: I work in the Nuclear Power Industry and am a
108 Revelation : It's not that clear to me that it's a QC/testing issue: what if there is a currently unknown failure mode that occurs after the device leaves the fac
109 BoeingVista : Thats not what the NTSB said, while they did say that the battery overall was not overcharged they specifically said that they did not know if it was
110 Scipio : The NTSB explicitly said today that they could not yet rule out overcharging (especially of a single cell) as a possible cause. It has no formal auth
111 RickNRoll : I that the definition of 'very long' would depend on where you sit. For a lot of people, six weeks is very long.
112 Stitch : That we had over 50,000 hours and over a year of airline service before these two incidents, such a failure mode seems even more likely tied to a QC
113 Post contains links rotating14 : http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...020199686_787batterysafetyxml.html Thought some folks here might make use of this data. From the looks of it, B
114 SonomaFlyer : To those that suggest this a/c should stick to a non ETOPS or 60 minute rule, that won't fly with the airlines that bought the plane. This plane was d
115 nm2582 : With regards to Boeing's plan B's, C's, etc.; here's my view on what kind of plan it's going to take to get the 787 back into the air. (1) the most co
116 n471wn : You are so right here----there will be no rush to judgement on this. This is very different than the DC-10 grounding which had a profound impact on a
117 Stitch : That fire was caused by a prototype charger, not the one installed on the 787. It also happened five years before the 787 entered service, so not exa
118 prebennorholm : Exactly. Ni-MH, while having a considerable capacity advantage over Ni-Cd, they have the highest internal resistance of all battery types when discha
119 par13del : Well, the existing a/c is overweight, the engines do not meet the specs that both OEM's promised the airlines, so there is some precedent for accepti
120 Post contains links iahmark : I think they will be changing to NICd batteries because they are proven to be safe, because they are available and already in use with most planes. Th
121 SonomaFlyer : Quoting Revelation (Reply 108): It's not that clear to me that it's a QC/testing issue: what if there is a currently unknown failure mode that occurs
122 blrsea : How hard would it be for Boeing to redesign the container and vent so that electrolyte won't leak, and smoke and gasses are vented out? I think Boeing
123 par13del : I'll bet that Boeing actually has engineers and designers working on that in addition to the other teams who are working along with the NTSB to ident
124 PanAmPaul : Except that I don't think that the FAA will allow the Dreamliners to fly untilthe root cause has been found. That is why it will take much longer tha
125 Post contains links spacecadet : The FAA has ignored NTSB recommendations many, many times in the past, including with regard to high profile accidents that have cost hundreds of liv
126 ComeAndGo : They're going to add nickel to the battery chemistry and make it more stable. That given mixture is touted as the next gen Li-Ion automotive battery.
127 Aesma : Is that the same thing as the power figures in watts I see mentioned for Li-Ion batteries ? I'm also informing myself on lead-acid batteries since it
128 ComeAndGo : i thought they had adopted a corrective procedure to keep enough fuel in the center fuel tank to avoid potential explosive fuel vapor mix.
129 ComeAndGo : it depends on how you charge the battery. If you go from 30% capacity to 80% capacity a Li-Ion can handle 100,000 cycles. If you charge it to 100% an
130 blrsea : What impact does it have on the battery performance? Any change wrt voltage delivered, charging/discharging capacity, ability to deliver charge for r
131 Post contains links LTC8K6 : Those chargers and batteries are apparently not used in the 787. "Boeing spokesman Marc Birtel said the 2006 fire resulted from “an improper test s
132 SonomaFlyer : Not to the degree that was suggested which is essentially eliminating ETOPS for this a/c. Do the math regarding how much longer point to point routes
133 Aesma : I don't think that's true. A cycle is defined as the equivalent to 100%->0%->100%, if you do 80->30->80 that's half a cycle, do it twice
134 Flyingfox27 : I havent read every post in the 5 threads so sorry if my question is repeated. When that cargo 747 crashed full of Li - Ion batteries, you would think
135 Aesma : All batteries can have a thermal runaway but it's more likely to happen during charging or significant discharging. In the case of cameras most aren't
136 nm2582 : It's all semantics. You can rate the cell in different ways and get vastly different lifespans out of it. Let's say you have a lithium cell that is r
137 WingedMigrator : There are dozens of lithium ion chemistries, all with varying properties.
138 seahawk : There are plenty reports of laptop, smartphone or camera batteries having a thermal rundown, there are even specialized bags on the planes to contain
139 par13del : So did they identify the root cause of the problem, was that a fix of the root cause or just a temporary fix to allow the a/c to continue in operatio
140 Post contains links art : Sorry if this has already been posted: "The Boeing 787 battery involved in the Japan Airlines incident on 7 January reveal signs of a short-circuit in
141 Post contains images Revelation : It was, but it's a good pointer to the state of play at this point in time. Kind of ambiguous, but I imagine the actual short circuit would/could bec
142 Kaiarahi : As of October, 2012, the FAA has documented 132 incidents of venting/smouldering/fire involving consumer electronic device batteries in cabins, bagga
143 alfablue : The following is pure imagination and was sparked by above comment: Boeing: Hey we want to build a plane with dangerous batteries FAA: But those catc
144 CF-CPI : As of Friday morning, the reports are that the circuit board which controls the battery was too far 'fried' to get useful data from it. (I didn't see
145 Post contains links blrsea : Today's Seattle Times has some additional info about how the NTSB is investigating the issue. Interesting read. Also official confirmation that for th
146 Revelation : Boeing: Really? That's not supposed to happen for another 10^N flight hours! The boss ain't gonna like this! Pretty much the definition of a "horse a
147 n471wn : Jim Hall, who was the former head of the NTSB, says it will be months and not weeks before the 787 will fly again
148 Post contains links sofianec : Sorry if this has been noticed before but United pulls pre-flight video touting Boeing 787 Dreamliner - http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...ner-vid
149 BoeingVista : Pretty much we have to show movement but we still really don't have a clue how the fire started... But here, look at some burnt things anyway. 20", o
150 Stitch : A foot is 12 inches, so it's 1 and 2/3rds feet or a half-meter.
151 BoeingVista : Jeeez, up too long I really need to go to bed..
152 tdscanuck : People need to realize that short term fixes are the norm for significant AD's. The short term fix gets you back to your intended level of safety so
153 Stitch : Looking at the lead-acid batteries used on earlier 747 models and the NiCad batteries used on the 777, their containment system looks to be similar t
154 ttailsteve : Hello, I am a long time member but rarely post. I cannot keep quite any longer. I have followed the 787 very closely since its inception. This plane s
155 Revelation : Unfortunately for Boeing, the NTSB Chairwoman says: “We do not expect to see fire events on board aircraft” so I don't think she's on board with
156 SonomaFlyer : This I understand but we can't have any fix until the cause is determined for both events. I should've been more clear in my statement though and lin
157 Post contains links alfablue : Good luck convincing them. We have a different safety culture now than we had during the DC-10 era and that's just fine and appreciated. Anyways you
158 tarheelwings : Tom, As always, thanks for a very thorough and informative post.
159 PITingres : I think you are mis-interpreting. A fire event is only one of lots of things that the NTSB "does not expect to see". That doesn't mean that you don't
160 ikramerica : This is the key. There is no way to prove something safe. It only can meet a safety threshold. And there is yet to be presented evidence that the bat
161 PITingres : The special conditions are a legal document and mean exactly what they say (using appropriate definitions, not necessarily common-use definitions). S
162 Wisdom : Li-ion is a relatively safe battery composition, if designed and handled correctly. In an airplane controlled by fly-by-wire controls, the last thing
163 WingedMigrator : Maybe because another 747 did not blow up 9 days later. Maybe because another A330 didn't vanish in the ocean 9 days later. Maybe because another A38
164 scbriml : Radius. An area approaching nine square feet.
165 spacecadet : That's from the JAL incident, which is the one the NTSB has direct access to. Apparently the board in the ANA incident is not in such a state, and th
166 AM744 : Even if they are only similar (Li-Ion and hold roughly the same amount of energy) rather than the same 'specific battery type', the outcome of that a
167 alfablue : So you are suggesting that the condition of electrolyte leakage was taken into account? When the battery containment spills electrolytes and the airc
168 par13del : Is that not how the airline industry operates, we do not wait for tires to go flat but change then when inspections reveal a problem, other component
169 abba : One thing is to talk to the airlines ensuring that you offer a product that your customers want. It is an entirely different matter to make your prod
170 PITingres : Of course it was taken into account. It wouldn't be a certifiable design if it hadn't been taken into account. It was pointed out (by Tom, perhaps?)
171 Post contains images KELPkid : Someone should present her with a flying pig As long as there are planes, and planes have electronics and fuel and other combustible materials on boa
172 WingedMigrator : Is 9 days apart OK with you?
173 KELPkid : Techincally, it isn't 9 days, as the JTSB says that in the NH incident, the battery did not catch fire. There were two battery incidents in 9 days.
174 Stitch : The NTSB also does not consider JA804A to be, in their words, "a fire incident".
175 trex8 : Again, as already pointed out by others, the japanese airlines voluntarily grounded the 787s, there was no japanese governmental edict to ground when
176 RickNRoll : The A380 RR was grounded, and when it was released to fly, very frequent inspections had to be made. QANTAS had a lot of trouble due to the incident.
177 RickNRoll : The pitot tube freezing up causes a standard case that pilots are supposed to know how to deal with, Unreliable Airspeed Indication. There is a stand
178 Scipio : I think you are wasting your energy and time. It is clear from this rant of his, that he has not bothered to read the responses to his previous rant.
179 Wisdom : As the conversation is starting to run in circles, ie the Boeing guys on airliners.net continuing to make us believe that the short-term fall of the s
180 Viscount724 : How many can they park at PAE as they come off the line with nowhere to go? I assume ramp space isn't unlimited and weren't quite a few already parke
181 Stitch : I don't know. Dozens, I imagine. Perhaps scores. If it proves necessary, Boeing will be able to secure Ferry Permits to fly completed frames down to
182 KC135Hydraulics : Our KC-135 batteries have QDs but there is no requirement to use copper breakaway safety wire on the knobs. Is this a commercial requirement for batt
183 Pygmalion : I think about 30ish of the 787 went through their rework facility last year and were delivered.. so there should be some room since they haven't been
184 KC135Hydraulics : If they send them to VCV I'll be sure to take pictures for everyone. That would be a sight to see and give me another reason to visit my parents in B
185 Wisdom : It's a standard in civil aviation. I've seen manuals that explicitly asked to install copper and not steel safety wire, other manuals of other aircraf
186 KC135Hydraulics : That happens everywhere. Our maintenance job guides often times for installation of hardware on components that directly contradicts what the IPB call
187 BoeingVista : Aha! Awake now yes, I remember how I got to the 3 feet in the first place 2 x 20 inches (radius) = 40 inches then rounded down. Sorry Stitch but you
188 prebennorholm : Both incidents were thermal runaways. Li-Ion thermal runaways have the potential to catch fire. It is not so interesting whether none or all, or as i
189 DocLightning : Are they capable of falling out of the sky? No. Do they journey into the middle of the pacific and suddenly have nowhere to land? No. The fundamental
190 Post contains links LTBEWR : This Associated Press article on the website from my 'home area' daily newspaper, discusses the series of problems of the 'Dreamliner', and suggesting
191 tdscanuck : Becoming? It's already the worst PR disaster in the history of commercial travel since Comet or Habshiem. I agree that, so far, nothing has demonstra
192 spacecadet : Ah, that makes it all better then. Yes, *they* do. *We* don't have to. *We* are the ones flying around in these things. *We* should not be putting ec
193 tdscanuck : Actually, unless you don't use commercial air travel at all, you do. The industry is driven, in the extreme, by price. That goes directly to (among o
194 PHX787 : So again sifting through more flames..still not much of an update? Thaaaat is a lot....by comparison, how much did 829J lose?
195 Post contains links AeroWesty : While I appreciate any correction to bad data, I'm going to have to stick with what I said originally, as it's also confirmed by the Seattle Times: N
196 7BOEING7 : If, big IF, the "riddle" isn't solved within a month after all the available additional data has been downloaded and studied I think the reasons behin
197 sweair : In Swedish media, "the dreamliners batteries can explode", sad times we live in really with all these journalists writing about stuff they know nothin
198 sankaps : You keep repeating this. Despite the fact your argument has been refuted as being specious by posts like the one below? Not only happened in quick su
199 wjcandee : I think that "Atlas Shrugged" should be required reading (or watching, for those who don't like to read) for all high-school students. They would nev
200 Post contains images oldeuropean : Bullshit and wrong forum for your promotion of neoliberal ideology. The same could be said about "Mein Kampf" or any other form of facist lampoons. T
201 seahawk : The big thing about the 2 events is that the first event was pretty normal. The battery failed, but the containment did work acceptable. Surely there
202 Post contains links macc : According to article at www.orf.at ANA is cancelling 787 flights from February 1 to 18. Thats another 379 flights and brings total flights cancelled t
203 Post contains links blueflyer : With the NTSB saying we're looking at months of grounding, not weeks (1), I'm wondering whether time in the simulator is enough for 787 pilots to rem
204 XT6Wagon : No, the big thing is that the Media and Ignorance is driving events more than Facts and Reason. You can see it in 5 threads of people insisting a ran
205 sankaps : That is your point of view, and some may have shared this point of view up until the point the NTSB released its detailed statement. The NTSB does no
206 RickNRoll : That's what it is. We don't know that the plane is safe, with the current battery system, with the required level of confidence. Quoting from the pre
207 Aesma : To those who think the plane shouldn't have been grounded, what would it take in you opinion to ground it ? Would a third similar incident this year h
208 TheRedBaron : I dont know if the last post was sarcasm, but in fact one manual I read for those batteries states "if you suspect a thermal event put the battery on
209 BestWestern : Probably for it to be made in Toulouse.
210 Antoniemey : No, we don't know that the plane's batteries won't catch on fire or leak. It seems, from the evidence we have, that the plane itself is perfectly saf
211 Stitch : I wonder if Boeing can invoke the force majeure clause of their contracts with the airlines since the grounding was beyond Boeing's control. NH and J
212 tdscanuck : The big event was the second event because there was a second event. The first event also released electrolyte and gases. The design criteria and FAA
213 Stitch : The impression I get is the belief that lithium-ion is to the 787 what hydrogen was to the Hindenberg: a massive amount of massively flammable materi
214 tdscanuck : They key part is Antoniemey's last words, "with the required level of confidence." The regulators require numerical thresholds on the probability of
215 BoeingVista : I really doubt that force majeure will fly here as the FAA / NTSB are investigating design elements that were fully in Boeing's control. Besides any
216 Stitch : Is there any information on the particulars of this qualification and certification process? Many have expressed the fear that the battery will burn
217 Rocker : Once the planes are back in service, does anyone have any info on United routes? Will they immediately jump back to where they left off? Or possibly g
218 Aesma : Well from what has been said there are procedures for dealing with a battery runaway in the cabin. Now checked luggage, that's another story. Also I d
219 Kaiarahi : Mine too.
220 sankaps : What evidence are you referring to? You should share it with the NTSB, because they don't seem convinced this is the case. I agree. My point is the N
221 flyingcello : This to me is the key...in isolation, a battery failure may well be contained, and allow a flight to land safely. However, we all know that air crash
222 tdscanuck : I agree we don't know for sure, in the sense that that implies 100% certainty. But a battery is a finite energy source...it only has enough reactants
223 Post contains links Kaiarahi : NTSB update from Jan 24 (slide presentation): http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2...3/boeing_787/JAL_B-787_1-24-13.pdf If there's a foreseeable chain
224 AeroWesty : Looking at the photo on page 15—did they drop one on the floor?
225 Kaiarahi : Looks like electrolyte debris from an unrolled cell. I'm a bit surprised that isn't happening in a more sterile environment, but then I'm not an inve
226 AeroWesty : But if you look at the table, one cell is missing. I'm not saying they're being sloppy, but the photo makes it look like one cell got knocked off the
227 bmacleod : FAA/Boeing have any idea on RTS? (Return To Service.) Surely the lithium-ion battery problem can be fixed soon....
228 UALWN : To me the key point is the following: 'Hersman said that although Boeing built multiple and redundant safety features into the battery system, "those
229 Kaiarahi : There's also a new NTSB twitter update: "The battery charging unit passed all significant tests and no anomalies were detected." So far we have: - evi
230 sweair : It would be the best outcome that there was some faulty batteries in this whole mess, but it uncovered some problems with the containment. Fix the bat
231 SonomaFlyer : It all depends on when the a/c is returned to service. If it is fairly quickly, the NRT-LAX route should start back up quickly. The DEN to NRT route
232 Post contains links tdscanuck : From a PR standpoint, they have to do something. It's not clear to me, yet, that there's actually a regulatory justification. If the slightly more vu
233 Post contains links PHX787 : Not sure if seen yet but NH cancelled 787 flights through the 18th of next month: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/201...-boeing-787-problems/#.UQQr4u
234 RickNRoll : The containment is not controlled. When the batteries overheat, flammable, hot material bubbles out and spatters out in random directions, through cr
235 Stitch : What you describe sounds like a "Rain Bird™ sprinkler effect" where a stream of electrolyte is sprayed out in a 360° pattern, coating the walls of
236 packsonflight : Mind you that the Boston fire dept put out the fire in the first event. But if you are flying at FL410 3 hours from the nearest suitable airport, the
237 RickNRoll : I think it is safe to assume there have been urgent emails being fired off around the Airbus organisation preparing an urgent review of their battery
238 sweair : OMG, can you more clearly show your bias?!
239 SonomaFlyer : Ah that is what Airbus claims. I'm sure that the relevant agencies will verify the system prior to certification.
240 Post contains links Revelation : Indeed. I think her statement was pretty incomplete then. No manufacturer would like to see a CNN report like this on its product: What is wrong with
241 sweair : He keeps harping that B is lying about its certification documentation, that FAA is sloppy etc Then buys the claimed A information straight off the i
242 Stitch : It would be helpful if they would explain how the systems failed to adequately contain the fire on the JL airframe and the electrolyte on the NH airf
243 ComeAndGo : Well, look at the other Li-Ion burn cases: burned cars, burned buildings, burned computers. The iPod left on the passenger seat of a parked car in th
244 packsonflight : this is from the NTSB press release on the 24. "The investigation will include an evaluation of how a fault that resulted in a battery fire could hav
245 justloveplanes : It's hard to say how much is perception and how much is actually unsafe here. Certainly the public scrutiny of all things 787, magnifies incidents in
246 Revelation : I think they've stated that they don't know why the safeguards didn't work as intended, but they haven't said exactly which safeguards aren't working
247 tdscanuck : Nobody's going to dance the waltz in there, that's true, but we're talking about a battery that's about a cubic foot and most of the contents is fixe
248 UALWN : I would assume that the NTSB must have a clear idea of what they mean when they say that the systems failed to adequately deal with the "fires." I wo
249 Post contains images DocLightning : Do not think that anyone at TLS is in any way amused by what is happening to Boeing. Perhaps they are relieved that it's not them (this time), but I
250 Stitch : And I would assume that in order to get the systems certified in the first place, they would have had to show they could adequately deal with fires.
251 Post contains links Revelation : http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...g-dreamliner-idUSBRE90M0ZO20130124 quotes the head of the NTSB as saying: Given that statement in its context a
252 kanban : of your list how many had a steel containment vessel? None.. so the point is moot. I seem to recall that there was no fire outside the containment ve
253 AeroWesty : Nope. From the NTSB slide presentation linked above: 10:35am - Mechanic noted flames coming from APU battery in aft electronics bay
254 ComeAndGo : The Lithium Cobalt Oxide battery chemistry used in this battery produces it's own oxygen. Great for fires.
255 SonomaFlyer : This is probably the most confusing aspect of this story. There are other mixtures for the Lithium Ion battery other than cobalt oxide - which produc
256 RickNRoll : No, I don't believe I described anything like that.
257 Stitch : I will admit to a bit of hyperbole, but then I feel you did, as well. So perhaps you can describe the mechanism that a high-visocity fluid that is bu
258 BoeingVista : The question also arises was this actually the chemistry that was certified by the FAA as the batteries were changed between certification and produc
259 ttailsteve : YES. I do!!!!! The plane has not injured or killed anyone. What has happened was completely planned and engineered for. When has the NTSB or FAA ever
260 b2319 : Tom, whilst you provide educational and insightful posts that, no pun intended, literally light up this thread, I have to take issue with this point.
261 prebennorholm : It is correct that a Li-Ion thermal runaway also expels oxygen. But the quantity is small and insignificant compared to the oxygen in the atmosphere.
262 Wisdom : Why so bitter? Thanks to Boeing, every li-ion equipped system will be put under scrutiny, don't worry. To me this indicates that you have never held
263 b2319 : Really? Even if you only understand 10% of my recent post (was #263, may change post thread tidy-up), do you really believe this? Care to share with
264 BestWestern : So, its Obama's fault that the plane is grounded.... this follows people suggesting that Airbus sabotage could be to blame as the most stupid post of
265 DocLightning : Well, if there is a fire, it would be quite hot and it could spatter. If there is, say, severe turbulence, it could navigate around the compartment t
266 BoeingVista : I thought that a 10 year old was typing your responses already...
267 Post contains links NZ1 : Please carry the discussion on here: FAA Grounds 787 Part 6 (by NZ1 Jan 26 2013 in Civil Aviation) Any posts added after the thread lock will be remov
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 Part 3 posted Sat Jan 19 2013 02:14:57 by NZ1
FAA Grounds 787 Part 2 posted Thu Jan 17 2013 09:49:30 by iowaman
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