Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Grounds B787 Part 7  
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12341 posts, RR: 18
Posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 31894 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Link to the previous topic FAA Grounds 787 Part 6 (by NZ1 Jan 26 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Please continue the discussion here

213 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1767 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 31938 times:

"Commercial Airplanes' 2013 deliveries are expected to be between 635 and 645 airplanes, which includes greater than 60 787 deliveries."

I think McN is just hedging his bets accounting for a little slippage due to the battery issue. I see a much better number (quality not quantity wise) coming in 3 months when things should be sorted out (hopefully).


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2591 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 31842 times:

Quotes from previous thread . . . .

Quoting PITingres (Reply 245):
That's exactly what the design does. How is that not clear

We have been going back and forth over this for a couple of iterations now. I think what is meant is not so much why the battery goes to brick/dead/over-discharged or whatever definitions have been used. The question is why the BMS does not have a double threshold?

Threshold 2, 15-20% capacity left (forgive me, I lost the actual percentage). This is the brick condition, or dead as some referred to. In this state, it is not considered "safe" to recharge it, and it should definately not be attempted on the plane. You will have to send it to a specialized repair facility for refurbishment/repair/recharge.

Threshold 1, say 20-20% capacity left. The BMS shuts down the battery and airframe systems in a controlled fashion to prevent it from reaching threshold 2, where the battery must be replaced and sent to a specialized repair facility. This way, you end up with slightly less battery capacity, but you remain with a serviceable battery; all it needs to re-charge the battery is an external power souce. No hassles, no need to replace a $16000 battery, and face an undoubtedly significant repair bill, not to mention any operational inconveniences as these things by nature don't happen in a scheduled fashion.



Elon Musk / Tesla
I find his words very interesting. Basically what he said (and this was stated earlier in this thread by someone else), is that those eight cells are way too big. Boeing (read, the battery supplier) should have used many more cells, with 8 small cells in series to get the required voltage, and many many parallel groups of eight cells to get the required capacity.

There are a couple of problems with these big cells:

1. Local Zoning
They are so big that under some conditions they no longer behave as a homogeneous cell, they start to behave as individual mini cells. In other words, local zones can develop characteristics of mini cells. The problem now is that these local zones are not monitored in detail. Those zones apparently can develop local low voltage/high discharge condition inside the cell, without being detected.
The BMS only monitors the big cell (all 8 of them of course), but can not see in detail what is going on inside each cell, it can not see the local zones.

Basically Musk says this is why Tesla uses hundreds of mini cells instead of Boeing's large super cells (well, actually eight of them). Each Tesla mini cell is monitored indepently. That allows for so much better monitoring in great detail and oversight over the battery condition.
Where the 787 BMS monitors eight cells, Tesla would monitor dozens, of not hundreds of small cells for the same overall capacity.

The Tesla mini cells are so small that it is physically almost impossible for them to have their own small local zones.

2. Heat dissipation
The Tesla mini cells are separated sufficiently to be able to dissipate heat, without seriously affecting adjacent cells. That allows for much better battery temperature control and thermal management.

3.Thermal runaway
Even if a Tesla mini cell goes bezerk, it is sufficiently isolated from adjacent cells to prevent thermal runaway of the whole pack. The thermal runaway is a non-event as it is limited to a single mini cell, with a very small amount of energy (both electric and chjemical) being released.
When a 787 cell goes bezerk, you're pretty much guaranteed to have a big event.


BTW, apparently the Tesla BMS does have a sort of double threshold set-up, as I've not heard or read of any, let alone 100 - 150 of Tesla batteries, having to be changed where those batteries had to be returned to Tesla for safe recharge . . . . but that could be me not paying any attention from the other side of the pond.


Rgds,
PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 900 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 31739 times:

Should Boeing offer a NiCad option? I think a lot of customers would take it up.

User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1767 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 31724 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 1):
Elon Musk / Tesla
I find his words very interesting. Basically what he said (and this was stated earlier in this thread by someone else), is that those eight cells are way too big. Boeing (read, the battery supplier) should have used many more cells, with 8 small cells in series to get the required voltage, and many many parallel groups of eight cells to get the required capacity.

Tesla batteries put out 40, 60 or 85kwh are warranted for 8yrs or 100K, 125K, or unlimited miles. They are the entire bottom of he car +/- and weigh I'm guessing 1500-2000 lbs +/-. You replace the whole battery at once and if it's your nickel , it's $8-12K. How does their pwr/lb or pwr/volume relate to the 787 battery??


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5947 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 31627 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 3):

Should Boeing offer a NiCad option? I think a lot of customers would take it up.

This question has been addressed; a NiCd battery of similar capacity would be too large to fit on the E&E racks. It could have been designed that way from the beginning, but with significant penalties, and at this point it's sort of a "gee-whiz, we coulda done..." head scratch thing.


User currently offlineComeAndGo From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1041 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 31597 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 4):
How does their pwr/lb or pwr/volume relate to the 787 battery??

8 - 12K vs 16K !! And warranted for 8 years !!


User currently offlinemacc From Austria, joined Nov 2004, 1073 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 31606 times:

Can I ask all of you a favour? Can u end that endless discussion about the batteries? By now that should be moved over to Tech & Ops. There are so many other aspects which would be interesting to discuss, as the impact of the grounding on various issues. I am a bit fed up by now with that thread.

here is a grounding, period. If for good or not time will tell. But I would be much more interested in how that impacts supply chains, pilots, airlines, leases and other stuff. Unfortunately, that goes under.

Thanks



I exchanged political frustration with sexual boredom. better spoil a girl than the world
User currently offlinetropical From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2008, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 31432 times:

Apologies if this has been discussed already- there are too many posts and threads to check. I was wondering if the 787's bleedless engines were a factor in the amount of electric power this bird requires (considerably more than older planes of a similar size IIRC), and if so how this issue might affect future demand for bleedless engines.

I got the feeling that as far as Airbus and many airlines are concerned the jury was still out regarding whether bleedless engines are really the way forward before this problem arose. If using them means more batteries are required than aircraft with conventional engines, airlines might decide bleedless technology is not advantageous enough.


User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1712 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 31358 times:

Quoting tropical (Reply 8):
Apologies if this has been discussed already- there are too many posts and threads to check. I was wondering if the 787's bleedless engines were a factor in the amount of electric power this bird requires (considerably more than older planes of a similar size IIRC), and if so how this issue might affect future demand for bleedless engines.

I got the feeling that as far as Airbus and many airlines are concerned the jury was still out regarding whether bleedless engines are really the way forward before this problem arose. If using them means more batteries are required than aircraft with conventional engines, airlines might decide bleedless technology is not advantageous enough.

I don't think the batteries power anything that uses bleed air on other airplane models.

Cheers


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1767 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 31358 times:

Quoting tropical (Reply 8):
Apologies if this has been discussed already- there are too many posts and threads to check. I was wondering if the 787's bleedless engines were a factor in the amount of electric power this bird requires (considerably more than older planes of a similar size IIRC), and if so how this issue might affect future demand for bleedless engines.

I got the feeling that as far as Airbus and many airlines are concerned the jury was still out regarding whether bleedless engines are really the way forward before this problem arose. If using them means more batteries are required than aircraft with conventional engines, airlines might decide bleedless technology is not advantageous enough.

No, the battery requirements would have been the same with engines using bleed air.


User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 31363 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 2):
Threshold 1, say 20-20% capacity left. The BMS shuts down the battery and airframe systems in a controlled fashion to prevent it from reaching threshold 2,

The problem with that is: think about the legal implications if the battery has to be used during a flight and it shuts down on threshold 1. Even if the flight lands safety, lawyers will be lining up to sue the airline and Boeing for emotional distress: "There was power still available, and your system didn't allow the plane to use it?" Now we all know what the deal is, but that's the sort of thing that can be demagouged to an ignorant jury.

Quoting tropical (Reply 8):
I got the feeling that as far as Airbus and many airlines are concerned the jury was still out regarding whether bleedless engines are really the way forward before this problem arose. If using them means more batteries are required than aircraft with conventional engines, airlines might decide bleedless technology is not advantageous enough.

The battery really doesn't have much to do with that, though. Remember that the 787 batteries only have two jobs: (1) start the APU, and (2) power a few essential systems when there is no other source of power. The only time you'd need the batteries in flight would be if both engines flamed out (or all four engine generators failed), the APU was failed or not running, and the RAT failed to deploy.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 31257 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting macc (Reply 7):

Can I ask all of you a favour? Can u end that endless discussion about the batteries?

Sir the batteries are the reason this a/c was grounded. The fact they necessarily must check the charging system and how the containment system worked adds to the complexity of the problem. If you don't want to deal with batteries, you'd best just ignore these "787 grounded" threads.

I'd love to stop reading and talking about the issue but that likely won't happen until the 787 returns to service.
  


User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1163 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 31099 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 2):
The question is why the BMS does not have a double threshold?

Just a guess on my part, but I'm going to suggest a) on-battery duration was thought to be more important than avoiding replacement (that's the "don't do that" argument), and possibly a related b) you'd have to allow several minutes at least for the power-up margin, and then a margin on top of that to make sure that you meet the specs for that power-up margin, and by that time you might be taking too large a slice out of the on-battery duration.

In other words, doing that might have required an x% larger battery for some significant x, and the designers didn't think it was worth it, and presumably whatever airlines were consulted agreed.

Whether anyone is regretting the decision at this point I've no idea.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 31055 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PW100 (Reply 2):
The question is why the BMS does not have a double threshold?

Because it increases complexity and the fault tree.

You have to prove that the battery will only disconnect at a level greater than 20% when another power source if available (Engine Generator, APU Generator, RAT) and would continue to discharge below 20% when it was the only power source for the airplane.



Quoting macc (Reply 7):
Can u end that endless discussion about the batteries? By now that should be moved over to Tech & Ops. There are so many other aspects which would be interesting to discuss, as the impact of the grounding on various issues

We already know that even a permanent grounding of the 787 and cancellation of all outstanding orders, while a tremendous financial hit to Boeing, would not spell the end of Boeing Commercial. They'd sell hundreds of 767s and 777s in place of 787s because Airbus could not meet demand with the A330 and A350.

Anything less than a permanent grounding just defers Boeing's revenues to the right and temporarily increases inventory costs as frames back up prior to the fix being implemented and deliveries resume.


User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6958 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 30969 times:

And I'd like to put to rest the idea that we'll know in the future if the grounding was a good idea or not. This is known right now, if not by us (if you're not convinced) then at least by the ones in charge. Even if it turns out, after a lengthy inquiry, that there was no danger of an accident, that has no impact on the initial decision to ground the plane.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 30890 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
Anything less than a permanent grounding just defers Boeing's revenues to the right and temporarily increases inventory costs as frames back up prior to the fix being implemented and deliveries resume.

In the time that I worked at Boeing, the company surrendered up more than $1B thanks to the Uncle Mikey scandal, and wrote off $800M over a small accounting rules change. This 787 business looks like a drop in the bucket by comparison. It's never nice to lose money, but perspective.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 900 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 30867 times:

The Seatlle times link has a video of a Lithium Ion Battery undergoing a meltdown with nothing more than a few wisps of smoke escaping from the containment. It appears it is possible to contain the result of a meltdown without creating an explosive effect.

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 30795 times:

I don't know whether this infornation has been posted before - if so, apologies for the repetition. But it appears to prove that a high proportion of the batteries have been giving frequent trouble ever since the aeroplane entered service; but the relevant authorities were simply not informed of the problems. The article is 'silent' on the question of how much Boeing knew about the problems:-

"Japan's two major airlines said Wednesday they had replaced a number of batteries in their Dreamliners after experiencing problems well before the worldwide grounding of Boeing's next generation plane.

A spokeswoman for All Nippon Airways said 10 batteries on its fleet had been switched, while a representative of rival Japan Airlines (JAL) said "quite a few" had needed changing.

"The lithium-ion batteries, made by Japanese manufacturer GS Yuasa, have been at the centre of a probe into the Dreamliner's airworthiness since a fire on a JAL plane in Boston and an emergency landing on an ANA flight in Japan.

"ANA, the launch customer for Boeing's lightweight plane, had to replace batteries 10 times ahead of the January 16 emergency landing forced by smoke apparently linked to the powerpack, company spokeswoman Naoko Yamamoto said.

"The airline, which started operating Boeing 787s in November 2011, had to replace some batteries after only a week while others lasted only a month, she said.

"In four cases, the main powerpack was only partially charged, while in two other cases a battery or an auxiliary power unit - which boosts the battery - failed to start, she said.

"All 10 replacements occurred last year - two in May, four in October, two on one day in November and two in December - involving seven Dreamliners, she said. The airline operates 17 of the planes.

"ANA had not reported the replacements to the Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) because "the ten problems were found before flights so were considered not to affect safety", Yamamoto said."


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/travel/trav...-20130131-2dmbc.html#ixzz2JVwlxdTh

On the face of it, it looks as if Boeing will have no option but to replace ALL the batteries with more reliable and proven types? However long it takes to develop, test, and certify them?

[Edited 2013-01-30 18:09:22]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 30719 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18):
I don't know whether this infornation has been posted before - if so, apologies for the repetition. But it appears to prove that a high proportion of the batteries have been giving frequent trouble ever since the aeroplane entered service; but the relevant authorities were simply not informed of the problems.

It was discussed at length in Part 6.

The reason the relevant authorities were not informed of the problems is because these were cases of the battery's safety features working as designed. So there was no "problem" to report, at least in terms of safety. The authorities now want to review those batteries to see if they can shed insights onto the two that caught fire.



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18):
On the face of it, it looks as if Boeing will have no option but to replace ALL the batteries with more reliable and proven types? However long it takes to develop, test, and certify them?

I would expect Boeing will move to a safer electrolyte material, if not as a condition to return to service, then as a subsequent change to improve safety and reliability in conjunction with whatever measures are taken to return to service. Newer formulations that have been developed since the original battery was designed / certified are much stabler.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 30639 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
I would expect Boeing will move to a safer electrolyte material

My bet too, Its the massive lead time to design and certify systems for Aircraft that really hurt innovation in the detail like a battery chemistry change. Who is going to be willing to pay huge money and wait years for a slightly better battery.

But it looks like in this case Boeing can select a much safer chemistry than was practical at the time they started designing the 787 battery system... and the FAA has some pretty huge incentive to do all it can to get it approved if it meets the requirements.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 30648 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 2):
Threshold 1, say 20-20% capacity left. The BMS shuts down the battery and airframe systems in a controlled fashion to prevent it from reaching threshold 2, where the battery must be replaced and sent to a specialized repair facility.

Why would you sacrifice the airframe to protect the battery?

Quoting PW100 (Reply 2):
This way, you end up with slightly less battery capacity, but you remain with a serviceable battery; all it needs to re-charge the battery is an external power souce.

No, the whole point is that, once you hit what you're calling "Threshold 2" you have to electrically separate the battery from the aircraft. That's an FAA requirement. Once you do that, you can't recharge it without reconnecting it. That means either you replace it (the solution they chose) or you put in a reversible disconnect...the latter opens two huge fault options up, neither of which is good. Swapping LRU's is a whole lot simpler (and almost certainly cheaper).

Quoting PW100 (Reply 2):
Basically Musk says this is why Tesla uses hundreds of mini cells instead of Boeing's large super cells (well, actually eight of them). Each Tesla mini cell is monitored indepently.

Each Boeing cell is monitored independantly too. I'm not a battery guy...does the size of the cell impact the ability to monitor it?

Quoting PW100 (Reply 2):
Where the 787 BMS monitors eight cells, Tesla would monitor dozens, of not hundreds of small cells for the same overall capacity.

Doesn't that greatly increase the complexity off the BMS, an hence the probability of a BMS or cell failure?

Quoting PW100 (Reply 2):
BTW, apparently the Tesla BMS does have a sort of double threshold set-up, as I've not heard or read of any, let alone 100 - 150 of Tesla batteries, having to be changed where those batteries had to be returned to Tesla for safe recharge . . . . but that could be me not paying any attention from the other side of the pond.

Tesla doesn't have a requirement from the FAA to sever the battery from the car, or to guarantee that the car is absolutely, positively, never without power. An unpowered car rolls to a stop. An unpowered airplane...

Quoting tropical (Reply 8):
I was wondering if the 787's bleedless engines were a factor in the amount of electric power this bird requires (considerably more than older planes of a similar size IIRC), and if so how this issue might affect future demand for bleedless engines.

They're a huge factor in the amount of power the airplane requires. However, that has essentially nothing to do with the battery size or design. Also, "bleedless engines" are relatively easy to convert to bleed engines...the 747-8 flies around on what is basically a GEnX with a smaller fan and bleed ports.

Quoting tropical (Reply 8):
If using them means more batteries are required than aircraft with conventional engines, airlines might decide bleedless technology is not advantageous enough.

It doesn't mean more (or bigger) batteries are required.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 17):
It appears it is possible to contain the result of a meltdown without creating an explosive effect.

There is no evidence that the meltdown on either 787 created an explosive effect. A fire and leakage are not the same thing as an explosion.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18):
I don't know whether this infornation has been posted before - if so, apologies for the repetition.

It's been posted before. The short version is that the vast majority of those replacements, assuming the articles are correct, are the result of the batteries operating *correctly* in the face of being run down in service.

Tom.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 900 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 30577 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 21):
There is no evidence that the meltdown on either 787 created an explosive effect. A fire and leakage are not the same thing as an explosion.

I didn't say there was. I had been saying they could just build a more substantial container, but people said that would just create an bomb that could explode. The video shows the container holding in the result of the thermal runaway with no hint of fire or solids breaking out.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 30572 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
Newer formulations that have been developed since the original battery was designed / certified are much stabler.
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
But it looks like in this case Boeing can select a much safer chemistry than was practical at the time they started designing the 787 battery system...

Thanks for the replies, guys. But are those 'stabler' and 'safer' versions already in service and fully tested? Or will Boeing have to be the 'pioneer' again?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7970 posts, RR: 19
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 30535 times:

ok hello guys, I've pretty much handed off the whole "japan" side of things to the guys who are technically involved with the 787 (like tdscanuck), so pretty much anything translated or coming out of Japan is pretty much old news by now.

Now I have a question:
1) progress on the investigation?
2) Any guesses on when the 787 will fly again?
3) Rumors were floating in Japan about lawsuits coinciding with these batteries; would that happen?
4) According to Japan Today the JTM investigation shifted from Yuasa to a Kyoto company which makes products that monitors overcharge, charge exchange, and other components which allow the battery to work. Japan Today couldn't explain more about it; what's the investigation going to be like there?
5) What's the updates on the replacement service?

PHX787



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
25 ComeAndGo : next year . . .
26 btfarrwm : If most of the problem with the Lithium Ion batteries has to do with improper charging and discharging, as the recent New York Times Article would sug
27 SonomaFlyer : It won't be that long. There are too many engineers and too much riding on this a/c to have the grounding last that long.
28 Stitch : It would depend on the formulation. As I understand it, the 787's batteries use lithium cobalt oxide with manganese. The manganese was added to impro
29 spacecadet : You can contain the result of a nuclear blast with a big and strong enough containment vessel (just watch an underground test from above sometime). T
30 Skydrol : On small or large cells, it is possible to monitor the voltage of each cell with equal accuracy. The problem with larger cells is that different area
31 Post contains links sonic67 : Is their a chance that Boeing would take Musk on his offer or is it just PR stunt? Elon Musk offers Boeing SpaceX batteries for the 787 Dreamliner htt
32 RickNRoll : I don't think that's the priority any more. Getting the planes in the air is. It has been suggested going back to the older technology, that's not an
33 Post contains links p201055r : More from Boeing http://www.independent.ie/breaking-n...xe-dreamliner-battery-3370880.html
34 Post contains links EBGflyer : A little more from Musk saying the 787 are fundamentally unsafe: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ttery-fundamentally-unsafe-381627/
35 Unflug : Quote from this article: "Boeing said about 2,000 batteries of all types were replaced every year on its various planes." How many Boeing aircraft ar
36 AeroWesty : The war of words continues. Musk and the MIT professor Sadoway claim Boeing doesn't have the engineering to prevent the domino effect which increases
37 rheinwaldner : From the last thread I only take over this quote, because PW100 wrote a great post about the rest: Because very likely the nature of the found root ca
38 justloveplanes : This was my previous thought until I read this..... If this is indeed true (The Tesla approach), it seems to me a permanent solution. Just a more rob
39 XT6Wagon : The problem with the Tesla idea is certification. They don't have to certify it to any standard other than bad press, much less to FAA arbitrary and
40 rheinwaldner : I agree. This might turn out to be the main contributing factor. I mean 76Ah from each single cell is huge. Correct. No, it should be easier as it fu
41 nomadd22 : The whole point is, Tesla doesn't have to sever the battery because it's not a single string of huge cells. They can disconnect a single series of ce
42 sphealey : Automobile certifications and aircraft certifications have some similarities and many, many differences, but autos are certainly very heavily regulat
43 seahawk : Tesla solution sounds possible, but then the whole pack with become larger and heavier and you will have to redesign and re-certify the whole rack ins
44 par13del : In which case the Telsa solution goes away, if you are going to redesign to get that much space for the additional size of the batterires, may as wel
45 tdscanuck : The argument about explosion risk was about *sealed* battery cases. As you said: If wisps of smoke are escaping, it's not a sealed case, hence doesn'
46 nomadd22 : I sure the heck don't know anything about the certification, but that just doesn't make sense to me. A cell failure when you have 800 cells isn't a s
47 rheinwaldner : You have to weight up the complexity increase by the risk reduction of going to smaller cells. What we do know, is that millions small-cell batteries
48 tdscanuck : If that's really true, I can't see why they'd go for the giant-cell architecture, except maybe maximum power density. What the FAA wrote (that's rele
49 cornutt : Consider the reliability and redundancy requirements. If you have 800 cells, you have a massively complex BMS with 800 sets of sensors, 800 signal co
50 Stitch : It depends on the electrolyte. Lithium nickel manganese cobalt has high energy density and high energy output (like lithium cobalt oxide), so it migh
51 ServantLeader : There is no way the FAA will let the 787 fly with the current lithium ion battery system -- too much evidence that it is unreliable and unsafe -- this
52 PW100 : I would be absolutely flabbergasted if Boeing didn't have a team working full steam on this. I'm pretty sure that they have several core teams workin
53 JoeCanuck : Cessna is testing, (and may already have certified), Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries for their CJ-4. If you look at the famous Sony laptop failures,
54 Post contains images PITingres : Well, I'm glad THAT's settled.
55 Post contains links and images alberchico : Just a moment of light humor to provide a brief interlude: Given the FAA's reputation as a ''tombstone agency'' we should be lucky this problem was sp
56 Stitch : The FAA is hardly the only regulatory body in the US, much less the world, with that kind of mentality.
57 strfyr51 : So far as we can tell from working the airplane, the electrical load on the airplane is actually pretty well in the normal range. Lord KNOWS there's
58 packsonflight : Possibly the reason why Airbus is going with 4 batteries for the A350 On top of that I guess that total battery capacity is way smaller given the con
59 Post contains links SFORunner : Semi-interesting article in the New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financ...013/02/04/130204ta_talk_surowiecki
60 cornutt : Not to mention that by getting rid of bleed air, you eliminate a significant fire hazard.
61 justloveplanes : I think that is the correct approach, because as you pointed out, the current regs may have been written with the current 787 in mind. With the new d
62 AeroWesty : And it gets its very first paragraph wrong: "Its braking, pressurization, and air-conditioning systems are run not by hydraulics but by electricity f
63 cornutt : First rule of working in the aerospace industry: Never, ever listen to anything the mainstream media has to say about aerospace. Yeah, I trust the Ne
64 RickNRoll : But if a small amount or smoke is all that is vented out, then it is going to be pretty easy to have a dedicated tube to vent it to the outside direc
65 rcair1 : But you can brick them. There are big warnings about not letting your Tesla get too discharged. BTW - if you brick your tesla - it is not covered und
66 7BOEING7 : As was noted above, the evolutionary "architecture" of the airplane has nothing to do with the battery requirement.
67 Post contains links rheinwaldner : Maybe because on paper the weight of the containment would turn out the lowest. A compact cube offers the largest volume per surface area. That means
68 cornutt : So if I understand the terminology, that's 8 "layers" of 20 parallel cells each. The thermography would be a cool solution if it had been thought of
69 Post contains links RickNRoll : Rumor of a fix Boeing is considering. "Sources say that Boeing is seriously considering a better containment system that solves both the collateral da
70 blrsea : Looks similar to the way the other company was making for Cessna. I believe the details of that company are in the previous thread.
71 ComeAndGo : unless of course you're virgin and that A330 hits a flock of vultures on take off in Orlando and both engines are out.
72 Kaiarahi : And here was I thinking this was an aviation forum - virgins, vultures?
73 Post contains links NAV20 : This story adds the point that the solution would probably be 'interim in nature.' "The actual mechanics of this would of course be more complex, but
74 packsonflight : King5 is not the most respected news outlet... I think we will be witnessing the 787 delay PR spin all over again. How many delays did Boeing officia
75 Stitch : They are in Seattle, so they likely have better access to Boeing personnel working on the issue than, say, The New Zealand Herald. As Boeing will not
76 tdscanuck : Yes, it's hugely different. You're talking about giving the battery the ability to shut down the airplane (that's "Threshold 1" in this scenario). Th
77 packsonflight : By now I guess Boeing has a pretty good idea what has to be done to get the 787 in to the air again, and what the timeframe will be, but I guess they
78 prebennorholm : This is one of the "solutions" which was brought forward here at a.net already in thread #1. It deals with the collateral damage and smoke/smell issu
79 prebennorholm : That's correct. The APU battery is dimensioned to start the APU. Whether the APU shall provide power by compressed air or electric power to start the
80 Post contains images francoflier : Hang on. Short cycle, low temperature, I think it could... It is my belief that most airliners have 2 batteries. In fact, even small turboprops have
81 RickNRoll : Why were so many batteries being locked out because they had been drained compeletly?
82 rheinwaldner : The cost difference is, because the Tesla battery has much higher capacity. More than four times higher. You can take cells out of order by simply ap
83 spacecadet : I don't see how they have any better idea than the NTSB does at this point, given that the NTSB are leading the investigation and have said flat out
84 7BOEING7 : That's the way many AD's are handled--come up with procedures or a "quick fix" hardware/software wise--get the airplanes back in the air safely--come
85 ADent : At some point Boeing needs to come out and say "No more Li-Ion on 787" and retrofit NiCd batteries and get the 787s back in the air - just like Cessn
86 seahawk : If they fix the containment, they fixed the problem. How often the batteries fail is not a safety concern.
87 packsonflight : That was easy. The only thing Thales had to do was to put a sticker above the switch panel reading: "WARNING In order to avoid FOD take your screwdri
88 Unflug : Here I don't understand your line of thought (probably for the first time). As I understood, the batteries will normally not be discharged in flight.
89 XT6Wagon : It doesn't matter if it "shouldn't" happen, you don't want to tell the regulators that the battery that is the last line of defense against power los
90 rheinwaldner : I am aware of that approach. And it is fine within some limits. But saying, the fire isn't fixed, so we just keep the fire in a safe box is far beyon
91 Unflug : What do you mean by "a day earlier"? If ever used in flight the battery will not last for days. The battery normally is kept in a loaded condition an
92 seahawk : Batteries fail. It just needs to be made sure that such a failure poses no danger to the whole system. And fixing the containment might not be an eas
93 sphealey : "Call it a day" is a colloquial phrase used in the US; it means "end of the work day", "stop working", or more generally "stop what you were doing".
94 2175301 : There is not a single Airplane, Jetliner, Nuclear Power Plant, or anything in existence that is designed for absolute safety; and in fact what is agr
95 cornutt : In other words, you need control of the charging current on a per-cell basis. That largely negates the advantage of the multiple cells. The existing
96 cornutt : Several points: (1) the NTSB is not the regulatory body, the FAA is. The NTSB has no stake in whether the aviation busines survives or not. They rout
97 Stitch : In many cases, it was because ground crews were using the batteries for longer than Boeing's recommended time limits. The NTSB's concern was that a b
98 Tristarsteve : Do you know why? In normal service we rarely use the Main battery. The aircraft sits on ground power all the time. Once in a while I might be on an o
99 Post contains links PHX787 : http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...mages-from-boeing-for-787-troubles NH wants compensation. Whoever told me in the other threads that they didn't
100 seahawk : That seems obvious, as the battery is also a reliability concern. However the FAA has 2 points to consider, the first thing is the safety of the plan
101 cornutt : That's a good question, and one that I haven't found an answer to. I'm sure that there is some kind of recommendation from Boeing on how long the air
102 AeroWesty : Interesting observation from ANA's CFO in there: "Tonomoto said ANA revenue will be eroded by about 3% for this fiscal year ending March 31 if the 78
103 spacecadet : Name me one other case in the history of this country where the FAA grounded an entire type and then let it fly again before the cause of the problem
104 Stitch : Yeah, they say fire on a plane is unacceptable. Well, you can't guarantee that you'll never have a fire on a plane - heck, it happens multiple times
105 Post contains links flood : According to CBS, UA has had to replace "multiple" batteries as well: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...d-airlines-replaced-787-batteries/
106 Kaiarahi : DC10. The NTSB report wasn't completed until months after the grounding was lifted.
107 JHwk : The idea of using a Tesla-styled architecture with commodity Li-Ion 18650 cells would work, aside from the fact that you need a brand new BMS system a
108 cornutt : Copy that. So much for that theory.
109 rheinwaldner : Do you know what the balancer does today? Nothing else. You should be more careful with foregone conclusions. Are you sure? From where do you know? Y
110 cornutt : And how much of that is FAA qualified and certified? Your previous statement answers that question. And yes, I have a pretty good idea what the certi
111 alberchico : How much damage was caused to the aircraft that had the battery fire ? Was the damage too extensive ?
112 Post contains images PW100 : You have much more knowledge than I have on this subject, so please bear with me as apparently I have a grave misunderstanding of things here. If, an
113 rcair1 : To the bathroom I hope - a public pissing match is not helping anybody. It destroy credibility and reputation on both sides. I was not clear - the 12
114 7BOEING7 : Let's just talk about the Main battery and assume we MEL'd the APU battery. If you lose all 4 engine generators, can't start the APU and the RAT fail
115 Tristarsteve : Well actually the flight control computors have their own separate batteries (two of them) that are dedicated to that function. B777 is the same.
116 Post contains links phxa340 : Finally some good news .... if they are making progress one can assume they finally might have discovered a root cause. http://www.chicagotribune.com/
117 7BOEING7 : Or, unfortunately, that they are just ruling things out.
118 Stitch : I would think ruling some things out would be a positive development, as it narrows the fault analysis tree.
119 RickNRoll : They didn't actually claim anything, just that they are doing something, which people always like to know.
120 ComeAndGo : That Article has zero information. Oh yeah, we're getting older.
121 par13del : My understanding is as follows: In the current situation the battery "bricks" based on a pre-set of conditions, there is no return from that, the bat
122 Post contains links NAV20 : According to the link phxa340 provided, the actual quote was:- "Our investigators are moving swiftly and we are making progress," spokeswoman Kelly N
123 phxa340 : Yea it does ... in the previous 6 announcements the NTSB sounded vague and directionless, at least now they sound a little more confident, that in it
124 ComeAndGo : I can watch my hair grow longer. I think it might have something to do with the secretary of transportation stepping down.
125 sweair : How big would a fuel cell have to be to replace the batteries in an aircraft? One for the APU and one or two instead of batteries? I would use jet fue
126 Post contains links sweair : http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_09_07_2012_p0-493403.xml Quite large it seems, maybe with time these will go down in size and weight.
127 fcogafa : Flightglobal is running an article titled 'Air India RFP proof of solid 787 demand despite investigations: lessor' but it is behind a log in....
128 Chipmunk2307 : Hello All, long time reader of this web site and first time poster. Apologies if this might have been questioned previously as I only check in once a
129 rwessel : Mostly reposting what I said in another thread: Fuel cells are not great replacements for emergency batteries. If you had H2/O2 powered fuel cells, y
130 Post contains links flyingbird : From Flightradar24 Facebook Air India have been flying with 2 Boeing 787 Dreamliner today! VT-ANI as AIC553 http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplane
131 sweair : Is that not a bug in flightradar showing the wrong model?
132 Post contains images aloges : Probably not, there was also VT-ANK operating AIC551 today. FR24.com says it went to VTZ (Visakhapatnam), airindia.com says it went to BOM just like
133 Stitch : The batteries needed replacement because the safety features on them were operating as designed. Therefore, there should be no liability involved. Th
134 Post contains links and images Aesma : About Li-ion batteries in aircraft I mentioned the Antares 20E before, let me now mention the Antares DLR-H2 test-bed for fuel cell powered flight : A
135 sweair : A fuel cell would not be shut off it would provide current constantly during flight. Maybe batteries would still be needed as a backup if the fuel cel
136 Post contains images KELPkid : Why? The NTSB is a separate entity....which only has an advisory role to the FAA. Although the FAA falls under DOT, unless the FAA chief gets replace
137 Post contains links cornutt : Full text of the 1 February NTSB press release here: http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130201b.html The one thing that jumps out at me is that they are go
138 flyingbird : Flightradar24 have a static database of route numbers that can sometimes be incorrect. But if an aircraft transponder ModeS code is shown on map that
139 Post contains images NAV20 : It's OK, cornutt, not offended if you missed this, there are lots of posts on here! :- Instinct only - but this does 'suggest' that maybe they're nar
140 PHX787 : I sure hope that's the case, if they were instead broadening the horizons of possibilities, I would be groaning so loud right now, because it only me
141 NAV20 : Agreed, PXH787, that's the other possible (and much less hopeful) scenario. I suppose I'm clinging to the "moving swiftly.....making progress" NTSB a
142 liquidair : Lithium is such a bitch! So emotionally stable... but thermally.... Ouch!
143 Post contains links blrsea : A boeing engineer blames the outsourcing strategy for the numerous electical failures on the 787. Goes as far as to say that more problems with the el
144 kanban : nice cherry picking.. and biased extraction. one or two boeing engineers not connected with the program and pissed off about the union negotiations r
145 Post contains images blrsea : Did you even read the article before accusing me of cherry picking and biased extraction? Can you please point out the other side of the same extract
146 Post contains images cornutt : It wasn't me! That may be coming. First they need a working theory on what is actually happening, so that they can design a test flight with the prop
147 SonomaFlyer : The article makes sense given the issues and the fact Boeing elected to dole out the work - including design - to subcontractors. You lose quality con
148 Post contains images Aesma : Made me laugh ! My guess is that Boeing was already doing that the entire time 787s were in the air but that didn't work. And that quote seems to con
149 RickNRoll : Do we know the actual numbers, or a rough ratio. As I understand it, one of the problems was the batteries being drained to the point that they locke
150 kmz : I also think that the point made in the article about outsourcing detailed specifications of dedicated systems is critical. You come to the point whe
151 PITingres : Problem is, I don't believe that is accurate. Nyc787's blog lists the number of test flights before delivery; unfortunately, the table doesn't carry
152 Post contains links trex8 : per the Seattle Times article http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...020241385_787deadbatteriesxml.html “We have had at least 100, possibly approac
153 sweair : A lot of BS in these threads, A and B can hardly be experts on every part in their products, it has never been this way and will never be this way, th
154 rcair1 : Oh come on - professional engineers involved in a system do not talk like this. Disgruntled ones, ones looking for attention, may. I was an engineer
155 SonomaFlyer : My point is that Boeing has never outsourced to this degree. The fact someone else designs and builds a part to a spec isn't terrible in itself but d
156 cornutt : Reminds me of the old saying about Ford's River Rouge plant in Michigan -- that trees and rocks went in one end, and cars came out the other end. Of
157 LTBEWR : Didn't the sub-contracting of the batteries and related electrical system components come from companies that did military aircraft sub-contrctors? Le
158 7BOEING7 : From Dominic Gates Seattle Times article: "To catch and eliminate minor system faults that he blames on persistent problems with the quality of parts,
159 TheSultanOfWing : You wonder how all this affects the "break-even" number for the 787 program...... FH.
160 ikramerica : India can allow moving the aircraft around domestically at their discretion. It's what I've been asserting. The complete grounding is not fact based.
161 sweair : AI flying around must be sort of an show of confidence in the 788 as they have been some of the most vocal against it. The test flight grounding is a
162 packsonflight : How can you state it was a FOD. Is that suddenly a fact now? Boeing only said possible FOD if I recall correctly. Why the extensive rework of the pan
163 Stitch : No spin. Boeing admitted the system did not behave as designed.
164 Post contains links 7BOEING7 : Airplanes grounded not the batteries: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...reamliner-batteries_n_2610986.html It appears Dreamliner batteries can no
165 Post contains images sweair : If it is the batteries and not the plane that is at fault, what an egg on face for some...
166 na : What I dont understand in this affair is why Boeing doesnt or cant offer a quick interim fix with a proven kind of "old style" batteries.
167 Stitch : I can think of three reasons off the top of my head: 1) Because "old style" batteries can catch fire and leak, as well, Boeing would have to prove th
168 blrsea : Can they use the 777 batteries since it is also proven? I believe the 787 batteries are 2-3 times the capacity of 777 batteries. Would FAA need to ce
169 JoeCanuck : So are the batteries actually currently being flown around in cargo holds? The article doesn't say they are, just that regulations allow the shipping
170 sonomaflyer : The power needs of the 787 are completely different and much more demanding than a 777. The bays in which the batteries are placed were designed with
171 7BOEING7 : True, but people keep using this statement in relationship to the batteries which I'm not so sure is correct. In case I missed it in the last million
172 YVRLTN : I cant (and dont) believe Boeing are only just looking at this now. I posted back in the original threads the electricians already had a good idea of
173 trex8 : Probably because a Ni-cd battery would take up far more space and weight than a Li-ion and there may be NO space in those bays without significant re
174 Aesma : Are you two sure that Boeing really can't fly test flights if they need to ? I doubt it. But there is no point in doing a test flight if you don't ha
175 rcair1 : I would encourage people to read my full post (154). This quoting makes it sound like I agree that outsourcing is the evil and the cause. I do not. I
176 Aesma : The FOD caused the fire but the way the system responded is what entailed a redesign, that also included changes to the boxes to minimize the risk of
177 RickNRoll : You can't outsource risk.
178 BestWestern : Many companies outsource Risk Management. The importance of risk identification is becoming bigger and bigger in companies.
179 kanban : Outsourcing came to Boeing via several routes 1) there was heavy section outsourcing for the 757.. didn't work very well. Contracts with several major
180 WingedMigrator : Sure, but that should never be confused with outsourcing the risk itself. If it's your product, you own the risk, whether or not you like it or even
181 BestWestern : The risk remains, but can be kind of out-sourced by insuring yourself against it, but to do that, you have to identify the risk, its gravity, likelih
182 rwessel : One of the big differences is that to do almost anything on the 787, you have to fire up one of the main computer racks to manage the process. Open t
183 BoeingVista : The 777 APU is rated to produce 120 KVA whereas the 787 APU produces 450 KVA from 2 generators so we have to assume that the batteries used to start
184 sphealey : The word "risk" should be removed from the vocabulary of US business. It has been stretched to the point of meaninglessness, and managers (particular
185 Aesma : But the 777 APU makes compressed air. What would be interesting to know is its shp or simply the model used in both planes.
186 planewasted : But are the voltages the same? Total stored energy is amp hours times voltage.
187 Post contains links 7BOEING7 : They got permission to return to base. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...eing-787-dreamliner_n_2613649.html[Edited 2013-02-04 08:39:51]
188 par13del : Boeing is continuing to build 787's, those a/c require test flights which have nothing to do with the battery issue, I took their comments to be test
189 sonomaflyer : Yet again, the media got it wrong. The FAA grounding order has no legal effect on foreign carriers flying to/from foreign destinations. India's own r
190 Post contains links Wisdom : The FAA is right to ground everything. Fire and smoke are very dangerous events. They can incapacitate both the aircraft and the crews flying them. A
191 DTW2HYD : Probably they rigged a webcam in the electronics bay. Would be even easier if 787 has WiFi(Not sure if AI has it) and a iPad with flight crew.
192 Navigator : I agree. The 787 Dreamliner is more dependent on electrical power than other planes. The Airbus A350 will have about a third of 550kVA power requirem
193 PITingres : I'll bet that they did no such thing. Why on earth would they bother? There's nothing they could do about a battery poof in flight anyway, and they w
194 Post contains images kanban : They may have put two guys down there with several sacks of sand to pour on the batteries if needed.
195 TheSultanOfWing : What I wonder about is whether new B787 customers that were supposed to get their planes in January this year are suffering even further delays? Or wi
196 Post contains images prebennorholm : Two 777 batteries = 96 kg Two 787 batteries = 58 kg If we scale the 777 batteries to 787 capacity, then 96 x 65 / 47 = 133 kg Something is wrong here
197 DTW2HYD : Or, Boeing can design drop-off external battery pods. In case of battery fire, switch to alternate battery power source, release bad battery and land
198 Post contains links 14ccKemiskt : Seems like the Dreamliner might be back in the air soon http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...8074_dreamlinertestflightsxml.html[Edited 2013-02-04 16
199 RickNRoll : Possibly not according to the article. The flights are for testing and investigation purposes only. However, 787 passenger flights won’t resume soon
200 14ccKemiskt : Well, a test flight is better than no flight. But seriously, I'm not sure if even Boeing's top priority is to get the planes back in service asap. Ev
201 RickNRoll : Like I said, it looks like Boeing is making progress, which is good.
202 Post contains links prebennorholm : Thanks a lot, BoeingVista, for those 777 figures. Yes, it would be interesting to have the same Numbers for the 787. rcair1 provided this link to the
203 Post contains images KELPkid : § 91.15 Dropping objects. No pilot in command of a civil aircraft may allow any object to be dropped from that aircraft in flight that creates a haz
204 Shenzhen : It's called insurance.
205 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Just to keep the 'factfile' up to date:- 1. This story explains why two Indian 787s were permitted to fly (without passengers) last week - high parkin
206 sonomaflyer : Its safe to assume that Boeing has multiple teams working on multiple issues at the same time. They should have teams on: 1. Battery; 2. Panels/compo
207 prebennorholm : Oh, I didn't know that. A contractor fails to deliver to specs, and your lost billions just magically drop like autumn leaves on your bank account. I
208 BoeingVista : I may have been a bit unclear here, the 777 has 2 sets of 2 batteries, 4 batteries total whereas the 787 has 2 sets of 1 battery 2 batteries total. I
209 Post contains images Unflug : That's the way to go - creates new jobs, too!
210 Shenzhen : Insurance is the transfer of risk, there is no other purpose. cheers[Edited 2013-02-04 20:19:37]
211 B777fan : With these long threads it's hard to tell whether you got an answer to this or not. A battery contactor is just a relay. They can be fancy or dead si
212 RickNRoll : In a simple way, it is, but what we are talking about here is something more complex than risk we often can't control, such as flooding or earthquake
213 Post contains links 777ER : FAA Grounds 787, Part 8 (by 777ER Feb 5 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 Part 5 posted Wed Jan 23 2013 12:05:50 by iowaman
FAA Grounds 787 Part 4 posted Mon Jan 21 2013 14:34:20 by iowaman
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
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
BA Decides: 12 X A380 & 24 X B787 Part 2 posted Fri Sep 28 2007 14:24:26 by PanAm_DC10
VS Selects B787, Part 2 posted Wed Apr 25 2007 07:51:59 by 777ER
EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2 posted Tue Apr 17 2007 12:51:22 by 777ER