Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Grounds 787, Part 8  
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12096 posts, RR: 18
Posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 30935 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Link to previous thread FAA Grounds B787 Part 7 (by 777ER Jan 30 2013 in Civil Aviation)

210 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGEsubsea From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 183 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 30876 times:

I know this thread has been focusing alot on the battery situation. But, found an article over the weekend addressing concerns by the FAA on the 787's suitability concerning long hours over water related to emergency landing sites. It speaks specifically to a possible IAH-Auckland service by ANZ. Didn't these concerns come to light with the 777 during its beginning's as well and resolved with E-TOPS???

"The US's Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] has been monitoring the Dreamliner's long haul reliability even before a number of aircraft malfunctions hit the headlines this week, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal.

The tighter oversight and potential extension of FAA restrictions on how far 787s can fly from suitable emergency landing strips could affect flights into New Zealand and Air New Zealand's use of the 10 787 aircraft it has ordered from Boeing.

After several years of production delays Air New Zealand is supposed to take delivery of its first 787 in the second half of 2014, and the airline said it was too early for it to comment on any reliability issues with the craft.

The WSJ specifically mentioned the long-haul, trans-Pacific route from Houston to Auckland as one which could be in danger from tighter regulations."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...reamliner-NZ-US-flights-questioned


User currently offlinemarkalot From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 30692 times:

Forgive me if this was posted before.

First, an article describing how Boeing wants to get test flights back in the air for more battery testing, which was posted earlier. http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...8074_dreamlinertestflightsxml.html

I note the following:

However, the initial flights will simply gather data on how the battery is affected by changes in temperature during the flight cycle as well as the impact of vibrations during landing and takeoff.

According to an industry source, one theory Boeing is investigating is that moisture getting inside the battery may have contributed to the recent incidents.


Second is another article describing how many of the FAA safety checks were outsourced to Boeing.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020288737_787faaxml.html

The tests on the lithium-ion batteries at the center of Boeing’s unprecedented crisis were conducted by the company. And the people the FAA designated on its behalf to ensure that the batteries conformed to its safety regulations also were Boeing employees.

There may be sound reasons for outsourcing the checks, but the tests mentioned in the first quote above sound like something that should have already been done. I'm not qualified to make any actual judgements here, but I believe going forward we may see some changes to the "safety checks outsourcing" process.



M a r k
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10679 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 30680 times:

After 3 weeks grounding what are the best estimates, there must be one, how long will this affair last, when will we see the 787 in the air again?

Quoting GEsubsea (Reply 1):

Air NZ should get themselves some decent Quads 


User currently onlinehkcanadaexpat From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2012, 586 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 30397 times:

"On Monday, Boeing asked the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for permission to conduct Dreamliner test flights, suggesting it is making progress in finding a solution to the battery problems. Japan's Civil Aviation Bureau said it was told about the Boeing request by the FAA."

Source: http://www.4-traders.com/GS-YUASA-CO...r-profits-not-due-to-787-16009240/


User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 30182 times:

JTSB has determined that the Li-ion battery that forced the ANA emergency landing went into thermal runaway -- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure. Unless a definitive root cause and clear fix can be determined post haste the current Li-ion battery system will not be certified airworthy -- and that spells disaster for Boeing.

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6594 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 30117 times:

Quoting GEsubsea (Reply 1):
Didn't these concerns come to light with the 777 during its beginning's as well and resolved with E-TOPS???

I think this is just the normal evaluation to grant ETOPS for a new airplane. The 787 entered commercial service with ETOPS 180 but if you need more the plane has to prove its reliability. And if it proves too unreliable (usually the engines being shut down too often) the 180 minutes ETOPS can be suspended.

Quoting markalot (Reply 2):
but the tests mentioned in the first quote above sound like something that should have already been done

They may have been conducted by the battery manufacturer for the certification of the battery, with another aircraft.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinekeegd76 From UK - Northern Ireland, joined Aug 2009, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 30029 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
Quoting markalot (Reply 2):
but the tests mentioned in the first quote above sound like something that should have already been done

They may have been conducted by the battery manufacturer for the certification of the battery, with another aircraft.

Even if correct I'd be amazed if Boeing didn't perform their own tests with the battery on the aircraft that it was actually going into. Its one thing for the manufacturer to say the battery works in a plane, but Boeing needs to prove it works in 'their' plane.

To do otherwise is just asking for trouble and quite possibly illegal.



Nothing comes down faster than a VTOL aircraft upside down.
User currently offlineZB052 From UK - England, joined Jan 2013, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 29895 times:

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 5):
JTSB has determined that the Li-ion battery that forced the ANA emergency landing went into thermal runaway -- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure. Unless a definitive root cause and clear fix can be determined post haste the current Li-ion battery system will not be certified airworthy -- and that spells disaster for Boeing.

Source please?


User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 29868 times:

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaki...asp?id=31536&icid=4&d_str=20130205

User currently offlineZB052 From UK - England, joined Jan 2013, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 29817 times:

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 9):

Many thanks ServantLeader! Apologies for asking, but after so many of the posts in the previous 7 threads all containing conjecture with no concrete evidence/press story, i felt i had to ask!


User currently offlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 956 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 29544 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 5):
JTSB has determined that the Li-ion battery that forced the ANA emergency landing went into thermal runaway -- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure. Unless a definitive root cause and clear fix can be determined post haste the current Li-ion battery system will not be certified airworthy -- and that spells disaster for Boeing.
Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 9):
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaki...asp?id=31536&icid=4&d_str=20130205

I don't see how's this breaking news except that some jurnalists were asleep for 4 weeks.

We have 8 full threads discussing issues in detail and after reading them your post seems totally out of place and time.

[Edited 2013-02-05 08:23:19]


FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
User currently offlineZB052 From UK - England, joined Jan 2013, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 29395 times:

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 11):
I don't see how's this breaking news except that some jurnalists were asleep for 4 weeks.

We have 8 full threads discussion issues in detail and after reading them your post seems totally out of place and time.

Erm, sorry for nit-picking, but isn't this updated information from the JTSB? Looking at the article linked, plus google searching reveals other news agencies (EG WSJ) reporting this? Appears there was a press briefing today (Tuesday)? Therefore your comments above seem a little scathing, not to mention a little rude?


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6594 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 29003 times:

Quoting keegd76 (Reply 7):
Even if correct I'd be amazed if Boeing didn't perform their own tests with the battery on the aircraft that it was actually going into. Its one thing for the manufacturer to say the battery works in a plane, but Boeing needs to prove it works in 'their' plane.

Well they're not going to test every screw and piece of equipment specifically. They did a testing/certification campaign and the battery had to have performed as expected during that campaign.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1317 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 28953 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 5):
JTSB has determined that the Li-ion battery that forced the ANA emergency landing went into thermal runaway -- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure. Unless a definitive root cause and clear fix can be determined post haste the current Li-ion battery system will not be certified airworthy -- and that spells disaster for Boeing.

I'm afraid this is not really news. Even if they did determine it went into thermal runaway (and I'm not sure that is a new determination), designing for that event is a requirement for the containment system on the a/c. The system must be designed to manage a battery that goes into thermal runaway - because you cannot guarantee no battery ever will.

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 5):
- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure. Unless a definitive root cause and clear fix can be determined post haste the current Li-ion battery system will not be certified airworthy -- and that spells disaster for Boeing.

It is important to note that this part of the post is editorial by the poster. It does not appear in the article cite.

What the JSTB said was:
"Japanese officials probing the emergency landing of a Boeing Dreamliner said Tuesday its lithium-ion battery was damaged by a build up of heat that resulted in uncontrollably high temperatures.
"The battery was destroyed in a process called thermal runaway, in which the heat builds up to the point where it becomes uncontrollable,'' said a Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) official.
"But it is still not known what caused the uncontrollable high temperature,'' he added, AFP reports."

Pretty much everybody here believed that there was a thermal runaway event in both batteries. We also know the 787 system was designed with that potentiality in mind.
The pertinent questions are:
1- What cause the thermal runaways and does it represent a problem that causes higher than expected occurances.
2- Did the containment system work sufficiently - or are modifications required.

My opinion ... OPINION.. is
1- we don't know - but it looks more like cell manf problems to me (opinion!) at this point.
2- I think the system did work - however, for PR and regulatory reasons Boeing will improve it.



rcair1
User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5678 posts, RR: 32
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 28604 times:

Now IATA is getting worried about lithium batteries:

"AIRLINES could face tough new curbs on the carriage of all lithium batteries — including those used in everyday gadgets"

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/.../Tech_and_Media/article1206566.ece


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2979 posts, RR: 28
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 28599 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 15):
My opinion ... OPINION.. is
1- we don't know - but it looks more like cell manf problems to me (opinion!) at this point.

Or BMS. The NTSB said early on that the circuit boards were too damaged to provide useful data. JTSB (with an NTSB representative) have been at Kanto (BMS supplier) for 10+ days now, with no news. If the BMS were "exonerated", one would have expected news by now (the BCU was "exonerated" within a few days).

The one thing we do know is that there was a short in one cell of the JL battery.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3967 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 28457 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting GEsubsea (Reply 1):
After several years of production delays Air New Zealand is supposed to take delivery of its first 787 in the second half of 2014

I would assume if ETOPS performance is so critical to Air New Zealand is part of the contract. Does this give them a way out if Boeing hasn't addressed any shortcoming to the FAA's satisfaction by some arbitrary deadline, like 6 months or a year before delivery?

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 15):
we don't know - but it looks more like cell manf problems to me (opinion!) at this point.

I thought manufacturing defect had been ruled out already.

Quoting markalot (Reply 2):
I'm not qualified to make any actual judgements here, but I believe going forward we may see some changes to the "safety checks outsourcing" process.

I suppose it depends on how much certification did the FAA "outsource"? A division of my employer is subject to regulatory overnight even though no one dies if they screw up ever. The regulators are not present when they generate data during testing, but they must submit the raw data along with their conclusions, and I am told it is clear the regulators do look at the data from time to time based on the follow-up questions they send.

If the FAA follows the same process, I don't see anything wrong. If on the other hand, Boeing is basically free to say "trust us it works" even for major components and the FAA accepts that and moves on, it is indeed more problematic



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 28426 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 18):
Or BMS. The NTSB said early on that the circuit boards were too damaged to provide useful data. JTSB (with an NTSB representative) have been at Kanto (BMS supplier) for 10+ days now, with no news. If the BMS were "exonerated", one would have expected news by now (the BCU was "exonerated" within a few days).

Or contactors. Or contactors and humidity and vibration...


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4395 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 28402 times:

Quoting na (Reply 3):
After 3 weeks grounding what are the best estimates, there must be one, how long will this affair last, when will we see the 787 in the air again?

The only time frame I read is if they decide now to replace the battery system by a conventinal one as used on the 777, the certification of the system and software would take about one year. Every else can be shorter or longer.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3488 posts, RR: 27
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 27879 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

per http://avherald.com/h?article=45c377c5&opt=6144 here is the latest JTSB addition

On Feb 5th 2013 the JTSB released a second progress report in Japanese reporting that all 8 cells of the damaged battery, nominal voltage 29.6V, 75 Ah capacity at 28.5kg/63 lbs, showed thermal damage before the thermal runaway, particularly cells 3 and 6 are damaged. The positive electrode of cell 3 shows substantial damage and a hole, the internal wiring has melted down.

there is a picture of the specific damage.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2979 posts, RR: 28
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 27578 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 22):
The positive electrode of cell 3 shows substantial damage and a hole

Interesting. In the JL battery it was cell 6, also positive electrode.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 19):
I thought manufacturing defect had been ruled out already.

No. All that the NTSB has said is that the main (undamaged) JL battery showed no signs of anomalies. The damaged APU battery showed evidence of a short. Today the JTSB announced it had found the same thing in the damaged NH battery. The only thing that appears to have been ruled out (at this stage) is the charger manufactured by Securaplane - the NTSB reported that the BCU from the JL aircraft had no significant anomalies.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlinestarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 26062 times:

Shifting gears for a minute:

Are the airlines preparing their aircraft for long-term storage yet? I believe that there can be significant issues with planes if they sit for months without preparation. I would presume that having the planes sit for four or more months would be an issue.



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlinehnl2bos From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 26132 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

With these threads getting huge as they have it is hard to gather information on what has been said and has happened (from airlines and manufactures). I wish we could get an update only thread going.

All in all, Im guessing we're not going to see the 787s back in service in time for my BOS -> NRT flight at the end of April?

[Edited 2013-02-05 13:38:46]

User currently offlinejporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 25507 times:

Quoting hnl2bos (Reply 25):
All in all, Im guessing we're not going to see the 787s back in service in time for my BOS -> NRT flight at the end of April?

I'm almost certain that the 787 will not be back in service by the end of April. JL will probably switch that flight to a 777.


25 RickNRoll : Or, cells that size can't be manufactured to the degree of reliability required yet.
26 ComeAndGo : There's also a picture of a brown ooze mark on the fuselage - fluid venting in flight.
27 ComeAndGo : what's interesting is that the JTSB claims that all cells overheated before the cell 3 + 6 runaway event. In the layout photo you can see that cell 3
28 Post contains links LY4XELD : The Seattle Times is now saying that FAA delegation is to blame for all of this. IMHO, the Seattle Times has been extremely critical of Boeing and the
29 cornutt : From the article LY4XELD quoted: "Dreikorn has been a paid expert in a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by Boeing employees in Wichita, Kan., claiming man
30 peterinlisbon : Just wondering... why don't they just change the batteries? I.e. put in a different type of battery, for example the same that they put in all of the
31 cornutt : It would have to be a lot bigger, and wouldn't fit in the space.
32 peterinlisbon : I'd say so be it, one less container or whatever, but this is proven technology and that would make it safe enough to fly. But I understand if there
33 JoeCanuck : The CSeries, for example, is supposed to have ETOPS 120 by first flight and ETOPS 180 by EIS.
34 hoMsar : In commercial airplane design, there's no simple way to "just" do something. It has been noted in this series of threads that to change the type of b
35 DocLightning : No. It means that he's a paid expert witness. Believe it or not, lawyers and judges are not engineers (or physicians or scientists, etc.). So in case
36 peterinlisbon : OK, I see this is a lot worse worse than I thought. Looks like whatever they do the 787 will be out of service for a long time, because the setup the
37 wjcandee : And they are not all whores. Engineers, in particular, are always the guys I want to talk to first in a lawsuit, if they are available, because their
38 Post contains images lightsaber : Late edit: I hope topic eight has much better news. Umm... ETOPS is definitely at risk of being reduced. This isn't news, is the statistics. That is s
39 Post contains images DocLightning : You sticking to it? Or do you wanna push it higher? Here's my nightmare scenario. 787 gets cleared for flight after whatever fixes and then... anothe
40 PHX787 : Ok Elephant in the room- this has been bugging me since the grounding. Most ETOPS-180 routes are close to a great circle route around the shorelines
41 rcair1 : Yes - but he is also probably not unbiased. I've _been_ a paid expert witness, and I've hired them. While you cannot lie - you are certainly painting
42 wjcandee : Me, too. It was a gas. But it was easy because I truly believed, and could defend, the opinion that I was expressing.
43 rcair1 : That is good - I did get asked once for one that I did not think was correct- I declined... You really have to.
44 Post contains links PHX787 : http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...finds-thermal-runaway-in-battery-2 Thermal runaway. This is nuts.
45 Skydrol : Even if nobody dies and a car is still structurally intact when an engine runs out of oil and seizes, it is still a 'catastrophic system failure'. I
46 seahawk : The Seattle Times article is not good. If government agencies and the constructor start to push the blame around, it is usually a sign that they are f
47 Post contains images PITingres : That is debatable, and in any case there isn't a good car analogy -- cars don't have multiply redundant systems. The item that failed was not critica
48 Post contains images wilco737 : Yes, we see that as well. We want to ask everybody to be polite and discuss in a civilized and respectful way. Do not start in name calling or any ot
49 Post contains images lightsaber : I think we're trending towards 3 to 5 months of grounding. I really want to be proven pessimistic. Once the 787 was grounded, I did not see a quick f
50 ServantLeader : The FAA already has charred soot on its face in certifying what appears to be a flawed / unreliable / unsafe Li-ion battery system design -- from a pu
51 Post contains images Kaiarahi : Wonderful example of an invalid syllogism
52 LY4XELD : I think it has less to do with pushing blame around and more to do with "exposing" a system that has been in place for years, on many programs, and s
53 PW100 : Can't speak for Airbus, but EASA definately delegates such authority to the industry. The maintenance company I worked for had an EASA Part 21 approv
54 Wisdom : Someone said that certifying an alternative battery would take up to a year. This is simply not true. Boeing can STC a system, by showing that the STC
55 Post contains links macc : small note on orf.at: NTSB director Deborah Hersman is quotet today saying that the investigation is still weeks from any results. She doesnt count on
56 Post contains links Unflug : Same quote in English: http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...ntsb-says-20130206,0,4238775.story
57 ServantLeader : Your estimates to certify a new battery system are just as valid as the one year estimate, but they are only estimates. There are too many variables
58 Post contains links Kaiarahi : I still wonder what they're going to do about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pizFsY0yjss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC0UWIYswKI No containme
59 rcair1 : In FAA Parlance, a catastrophic failure is Catastrophic: Results in multiple fatalities and/or loss of the system. Defined: Effect on aircraft occupa
60 Post contains links and images lightsaber : That is important and worth repeating. Maybe a little longer for acid containment. Ugh oh... That is a week for week hit on my timeline. That is very
61 Post contains links Wolbo : Boeing proposes an interim fix to get the 787 flying again. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...iner-battery-idUSBRE9151CN20130206
62 Post contains links UA787DEN : FAA has approved a ferry flight: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-for-boeing-s-grounded-787-1-.html
63 hoMsar : Not that it matters, but, what plane is this that's in Texas for painting and is ferrying to Washington?
64 cornutt : By the FAA's official definition, as stated in AC 25.1309, it is not. Now, we can debate whether or not a catastrophic failure would be possible in t
65 Post contains links Stitch : Leeham, piggybacking off the WSJ articles, notes Boeing is considering the following design changes: ● spacing the battery cells; ● adding some ri
66 cornutt : That's interesting that Boeing thinks they can find out something from a test flight. Presumably if the suspected cause was purely electrical, that co
67 Stitch : I believe they're also checking to see if moisture is getting into the containment vessel / battery.
68 Post contains links Hmelawyer : Based on the tables at All Things 787 ( http://nyc787.blogspot.com ) it must be LN43, destined for China Southern. It is the only 787 at Fort Worth a
69 prebennorholm : It's not a test flight. It's a ferry flight back to Everett.
70 ComeAndGo : That's probably what's happening.
71 cornutt : Ah yes, I had forgotten about that. Which leads to another conjecture: moisture accumulates on top of a cell and lets current flow between the termin
72 Post contains links NAV20 : Good point, cornutt. This story suggests that the battery design has come under increased 'suspicion' in the last few days:- "Boeing Co. is proposing
73 cornutt : I think we're talking about different things. The ferry is to return a 787 that's in Texas back to Everett. The test flight hasn't been approved yet,
74 Post contains images lightsaber : At least one will fly... even without passengers. Boeing had better have hired a shaker table in a vacuum/moisture/thermal chamber. First they need t
75 7BOEING7 : "The test flight hasn't been approved yet, and Boeing has not identified which aircraft they might use for that." ZA005 which is in the flight test in
76 cornutt : I'm really beginning to wonder about those big ol' bus bars. Being aluminum, they probably aren't as heavy as they look, but I'll bet they are a lot
77 Unflug : You might have a chance to be proven pessimistic: From the article: "One source added that under a best-case scenario, passenger flights could resume
78 BoeingVista : A few threads ago there was discussion about who could disclose information about an ongoing investigation and the consensus was that only the NTSB c
79 Post contains links NAV20 : Looks like we can already read most of what the NTSB is going to say:- "The National Transportation Safety Board will publicly question at a news con
80 seahawk : Few weeks is very optimistic, as the modified batteries will most likely require another containment box, which probably won´t fit the old position i
81 BoeingVista : This seems to be the information being leaked out of Boeing which seems to preempt the NTSB announcement, I question the legality of these leaks. Eve
82 DTW2HYD : I thought in any large battery pack cells are separated by a thin film.
83 Post contains images NAV20 : Don't often quote myself, DTW2HYD - but please refer to Post 72 above :-
84 Kaiarahi : You should re-read more carefully. 1. There are two processes going on - NTSB investigation of two battery incidents, and FAA review of the certifica
85 BoeingVista : Maybe you should re-read the article, the leaks about the fixes are coming from Boeing. They are clearly talknig about informaton gained in the inves
86 par13del : Yep, no one ever accused the government and its minions of keeping secrets, let's see if anyone at the NTSB is going to be charged for blabbing about
87 Kaiarahi : I did. Where does it say that? No they didn't. Which says that the public release of information must be approved by the NTSB, not necessarily releas
88 Post contains links swallow : It appears Elon Musk had a point re the domino effect of fire spreading within the battery, "Large cells without enough space between them to isolate
89 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : B-2727 is being prepared for its ferry flight. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/B...2/history/20130207/1430Z/KFTW/KPAE
91 Kaiarahi : Form your own quote: "SAY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND INDUSTRY OFFICIALS BRIEFED ON THE MATTER". How on earth anyone could construe that to mean is beyon
92 cmf : How is Boeing leaking information the fault of the government?
93 Stitch : That would require omniscience at Boeing and the various regulators. Since that is not possible, we have Airworthiness Directives to update the fault
94 par13del : The usual "unamed sources" or "sources who choose to stay un-named because they are not authorized to speak" are government officials. If there is a
95 Post contains links flood : NTSB update live feed: http://www.wltx.com/news/article/220...Gives-Update-on-Dreamliner-Safety-
96 Post contains links flyingbird : The The Dreamliner will fly over Denver in a couple of minutes http://fr24.com/BOE382
97 Post contains links ServantLeader : NTSB disputes Boeing's "single cell theory" and questions the assumptions made to certify the Li-ion batteries -- "interim report" is due out in 30 da
98 Stitch : The NTSB has no authority over certification.
99 sonomaflyer : Quite true, that authority rests with the FAA. However, the notion the FAA would ignore NTSB's statements and concerns isn't realistic. Boeing may ha
100 Post contains links vegas005 : http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/07...ed-top-accident-investigator-says/ This woman seems unqualified to speak. Political science major with no engin
101 ServantLeader : Completely irrelevant -- and besides, it's actually desirable to have a non-technical person weigh in as they can bring different different skill set
102 Stitch : I agree that the FAA would not outright ignore the NTSB. However, the NTSB's mandate favors safety above other considerations. A nice mandate in theo
103 PW100 : ???? If at all, she just gave a vital piece of information why the plane was grounded. We have been looking for this information for 8 threads now! T
104 scbriml : If it was that simple, why didn't it show up in thousands of test flights flown by Boeing?
105 vegas005 : Irrelevant? We have enough talking heads in Washington, her resume is sparse to say the least. An obvious political appointment. Maybe she is just sp
106 Kaiarahi : Yeah - first appointed by Bush, then reappointed by Obama - obviously a partisan appointment. BTW, all agency heads are "political" appointments. Rig
107 par13del : The a/c was obviously certified without the blessing of the NTSB, I will do some research to see if the NTSB was involved when they had the panel sho
108 Post contains links Stitch : At the time of the incident, they were being advised of the issue, but had not sent any personnel because jurisdiction was "a gray area" due to the p
109 7BOEING7 : Yes, she is a political appointee and her next political appointment could be that of Sec of Transportation which if this issue is still ongoing would
110 par13del : Thanks my friend. At the end of the process it will be interesting to see if they request a mandate to be more actively involved when "incidents" occ
111 RickNRoll : That quote sums it up. Quote: National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman said the board's investigation of last month's battery fir
112 Stitch : The FAA could modify the special conditions to allow the current battery, flawed as it is, to continue to be used provided Boeing proves they have a
113 Post contains links AeroWesty : The video of today's NTSB press conference is now online at youtube, for those interested: NTSB February 7, 2013 press conference video
114 ComeAndGo : With one battery failure every 50,000 flight hours ??
115 ComeAndGo : probably because of
116 flyingcello : Agree...but how would this play with airlines and passengers? Passenger confidence would be dented, and airlines want not just safety but reliability
117 Stitch : Hasn't contributed to the loss of an airframe with the sub-standard containment system they have now, so one that actually works as advertised would
118 Post contains links flood : According to various news outlets the FAA has approved test flights - with restrictions: http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2013...7/faa-authorizes-787-t
119 RickNRoll : They are, but Lead Acid and NiCad are known to be reasonably safe for aircraft, from extensive experience. I have no argument with improving technolo
120 N766UA : Who the HELL is going to fly on an airplane that catches fire?! "Oh, don't worry, it wont actually burn through anything!"
121 tugger : Statistically this can still be within the 1 in 10,000,000hrs allowance. So it doesn't mean that it will happen again in 50,000hrs. Tugg
122 N766UA : Considering it's happened several times already, I'd say it's safe to lowball it.
123 Stitch : Airplanes catch fire every day for various and sundry reasons. During it's first year of service, a number of 777s experienced on-board fires. And th
124 tugger : Twice (that I know of). Statistically they could very well be outliers and certainly do not prove the actual failure rate. We still just do not know
125 PITingres : Since there seems to be ongoing confusion about who does what, perhaps a brief summary might be useful: - The FAA is the certifying authority in the
126 N766UA : And to find out are you willing to risk hundreds of lives? These incidents may ultimately prove to be statistical outliers, but right now that batter
127 Post contains links ikramerica : Which is how it was designed in the first place, right? It is a known failure mode that the battery could catch fire or spill it's guts, and it was p
128 packsonflight : Are you really saying that fire on board an aircraft is ok? I believe that the FAA is not going to be happy with that, and same goes for the public.
129 rcair1 : Where in the world did you get that - oh - "potential". Well every pilot and passenger that boards an aircraft is a "potential" hazard 100% of the ti
130 PITingres : Well, it depends on the fire, doesn't it? Are we really back to any fire means we're all gonna die? It's basic physics that if you have X amount of l
131 packsonflight : It WAS allowed for, (but only every 10 million flight hours) but it failed. The big news is that the containment FAILED. The BFD spent over an hour f
132 RickNRoll : You don't have to take the word of anyone on A.net in civ, the NTSB and FAA both agree the plane should be grounded. This is not done lightly, it's b
133 Shenzhen : Not to split hairs, but if we are talking flight hours, then there was only one event that created smoke during flight (with no fire). One data point
134 par13del : Interesting that we have not seen much on this aspect of the incident, exactly how does one fight a Lithium bat fire, everything we read is that it m
135 Stitch : I'm saying that fire aboard an aircraft is a reality. And when it does happen, better it happens in an environment that was at least designed to deal
136 Post contains images NAV20 : If I'm allowed some humour, packsonflight, the 787 has only had one fire 'in flight'; the Boston one occurred when the aeroplane was parked at the ga
137 Post contains images par13del : If we want to be 100% safe on a 787 that's the way to go, if Boeing looses any money it serves them right for designing a crap plane, out-sourcing jo
138 Post contains images Stitch : Of course, we'd have to tell Airbus to stop production on the A350XWB immediately and close up the FAL since it also uses unproven and unsafe technol
139 packsonflight : According to this logic: a failed hijack is not an actual hijack. This is splitting hairs... That line of defense failed, period. Ofcourse not, and i
140 WingedMigrator : No, a hundred thousand data points... actually 1.3 million, which is the number of hours on these batteries. Every hour without a failure is another
141 sweair : It will be fine once fixed and life will go on for all of us who don't hate the 787 and Boeing, the rest will keep bringing this up forever in their b
142 RickNRoll : One data point was all it took to ground the RR A380.
143 ComeAndGo : Well, there's been earthquakes since the Northridge Earthquake. Twentynine Palms. There's earthquakes every day. Your example is stupid and out of pl
144 seahawk : Bad situation for Boeing. It is harldy worth the effort to redesign the containment for the current batteries, when you know you have to redesing the
145 BrouAviation : Rubbish. Imagine the faces of the people at FAA-HQ when airlines announced they refused to fly with the plane before issues were resolved. It's not l
146 PITingres : Incorrect. It worked -- the damage to the surrounding EE bay was minimal, the fire burned itself out (and clearly would have done so even without any
147 rheinwaldner : You and some others are again in this downplaying mode. It is irrelevant for aircraft systems not intended to burn, how much other fires on an aircra
148 packsonflight : Courtesy of the BFD Statistics can be tweaked any way you like. I could just as well say that we have battery fire every 9 days in a fleet of 50 airc
149 ltbewr : One has to wonder that at times technical and engineering developments exceed our ability to regulate and do testing of them. We have seen numerous ti
150 N766UA : Need I remind you that this potential is so great that it caused the airplane to be grounded worldwide? Such a thing hasn't happened since the introd
151 Post contains images NAV20 : Fair enough, ltbewr. But this battery type is already being used on smaller aeroplanes, and indeed Boeing's battery-maker has already supplied batter
152 RickNRoll : I think they are quite manageable. Perhaps Boeing stretched a little too far with the batteries, along with everything else. The plane has many leadi
153 par13del : I think you mean by other people not doing their testing, Boeing designed their products and are obligated to test it, if the regulators choose to be
154 Stitch : And you and some others are again in overplaying mode.
155 ContnlEliteCMH : No wonder is required. Technical and engineering developments have *always* exceeded testing and regulation. It is understandable if this is a source
156 Post contains links ServantLeader : The containment did not work -- the ANA flight was forced into an emergency landing due to the smell of fire in the cockpit, from the article: "But s
157 rcair1 : No - it has happened 2 times and that is more than expected - so one questions the probability function. But it is not proof it would happen again in
158 ServantLeader : We're not talking about burnt toast here, but toxic fumes that could sicken pilots, crew, and passengers -- the 787 will not fly again until Boeing c
159 seahawk : I think the main concern of the NTSB must be a combination of both events in one event. Meaning a battery that spills the electrolytes and then catche
160 Post contains links 7BOEING7 : http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewa...oblems-get-worse/?partner=yahootix Boeing tells customers to expect delays (duh) and AB consider switching back
161 rcair1 : I was referring to the absurdness of some of the statements made here - not the FAA actions to ground the aircraft. It was discussed at length in ear
162 Post contains links rcair1 : Again - back to the data. NFPA sponsored test (June 2011) (1) Gases measured from test fires under different conditions. CO 15.1% 6.4% 8.4% 6.5% 9.1%
163 Kaiarahi : Thank you!
164 mjoelnir : I think the guys talking about that the containment worked and/or there was no danger of further damage, should take a step back and look at what the
165 Stitch : People with direct knowledge and experience with the Yuasa batteries used on the 787 have stated that the electrolyte is in a paste-like form. They a
166 mjoelnir : I think the paste is a misunderstanding, the electrolyte has to be a liquid at working temperature for the battery. but let that be. A paste at what
167 ComeAndGo : The mechanic so flames emanating from the battery. So a quick word to the FD is all it takes to locate the battery. Some people are desperate. two fi
168 JHwk : Thanks, I was wondering about the impact beyond "smell." However, CO (to pick the easiest one) is toxic at levels "as low as" 667ppm. So, if we use t
169 Stitch : Absolutely. Especially since it evidently did work in keeping actual visual smoke particles from entering the flight deck and the passenger cabin whi
170 Post contains links ComeAndGo : On this battery the electrolyte is a paste. It's a Yuasa invention used also on the NiMH batteries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel–metal_hydri
171 mjoelnir : Dear Stich, It was working once. Air planes were flying for years without inert gas in there tanks, they did not explode for years. You have a big ba
172 Post contains images Stitch : And if fuel tanks were actively vented as the fuel level drew down, perhaps they wouldn't have exploded. As part of the testing and certification reg
173 PITingres : Come, now. This is nonsense. The fire did not spread, it was contained to the box, damage outside the box was minimal. That is what containment means
174 Post contains images rcair1 : No it does not - ions and electrons do not care about the liquid/paste form. There have been plenty of batteries that use a paste electrolyte. Yes -
175 Post contains links rheinwaldner : IMO it is fundamentally flawed. Because of the large cells. Large cells batteries are something new and research has not yet brought them to the same
176 mjoelnir : Dear Stich, you would be the guy who in a well ventilated garage would look with a lighter if there is still petrol in the near empty can. That the sm
177 Stitch : It might very well be to the FAA since it's harder for a paste to be "sprayed about the bay" than a liquid and that is one of the items the FAA is wo
178 mjoelnir : I think you are seriously underestimating the danger of a fuel air explosion. You do not need a lot of vapour. Lets say you have out of the several l
179 BlueShamu330s : As an aside, and perhaps indicative of what Boeing are telling operators, Thomson, with 3 Dreamliners on the FAL, are negotiating contingency plans to
180 RickNRoll : I suppose that is one of the unresolved debates here. Just how significant is this event. When QF32 occurred, there was no question it was a major is
181 Post contains images ComeAndGo : I deleted my post [Edited 2013-02-08 15:16:51]
182 Post contains images Stitch : Ain't that the truth. Just because I do not believe the 787 is a death trap should not be considered as a statement that I believe nothing is wrong w
183 par13del : Now I'm confused, I thought that was already in place,. not only do they allow venting but they also allow the crew to increase air circulation withi
184 mjoelnir : The "containment" is now venting inside the e-bay.
185 Kaiarahi : Which vents outside.
186 BEG2IAH : So many people explained multiple times what containment meant and you send this? Would you mind explaining what your definition of containment might
187 mjoelnir : Does really nobody understands what it means to went flammable, possible explosive vapour INSIDE a plane? Is the the e-bay ex proofed? All apart from
188 par13del : Ok now I think I understand you, essentially you want a pipe attached to the battery which leads out-side the a/c, so in the event of any issue, the
189 BEG2IAH : You got an extremely detailed and technical response in post 174 but somehow you do not acknowledge it. While some people take these questions very s
190 packsonflight : From the WSJ article: "Possible changes include an enhanced covering—dubbed by some as "a containment box"—with the goal of keeping flames or che
191 PITingres : It's in turn vented to the outside; there is positive airflow through the bay. Do you understand *that*? I don't know the specific volatility and fla
192 mjoelnir : I can as well call the person posting this endless talk about the containment worked trolls. Number one Boston: Both the mechanic reporting the fire a
193 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Thanks, rheinwaldner - does begin to look as if the 'big cell' batteries currently in use will eventually have to go. By coincidence I'd found this p
194 PITingres : Not necessarily. The containment worked, twice. And, to be clear, by "worked" I do NOT mean "did not allow anything to escape", I mean "prevented sig
195 PITingres : I think you are confusing the anode-cathode separator within the cell, with the inter-cell separation. The former is the one that is a few microns. T
196 7BOEING7 : Not my quote nor is it a quote from the article that was linked in Reply160--please get it right next time.
197 ComeAndGo : The NTSB said the maximum temperatures of the electrolyte was 500 deg Fahrenheit which I think is around 220 deg Celsius. It did not get close to the
198 Post contains links 14ccKemiskt : Obviously, Airbus is now considering skipping Lithium batteries altogether: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...L5N0B8BRZ20130208?type=companyNews
199 packsonflight : On January 8. NTSB said this: "The NTSB investigator on scene found that the auxiliary power unit battery had severe fire damage. Thermal damage to t
200 prebennorholm : 500 F = 260 C. But that's irrelevant for two reasons: 1. The JL battery, which the NTSB investigates, did catch fire. 2. A Li-Ion thermal runaway has
201 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Just don't know enough about electricity, I guess, PITingres. But I was working from this bit on Page Two of the story I posted:- "The other issue as
202 prebennorholm : What is equally interesting in this Reuters article is what insurance people say. The final outcome of this event will of course be dealt with by the
203 ComeAndGo : So airbus is going to go with the heavier solution while boeing will weather the storm, change the electrolyte in the battery and come up with a safe
204 rcair1 : And who - exactly - is not realizing that. It is not me. You've seen me agree with the grounding multiple times. I've said over and over again -and I
205 francoflier : They'd be crazy not to. Especially since the regulations regarding Li-ion batteries are bound to undergo major modifications. Why design a battery sy
206 RottenRay : Alright, MJOELNIR, you're right over the top. You have no idea whatsoever whom you are speaking about. As for the rest of the idiots whose screen nam
207 sweair : Calling people with knowledge trolls says it all about you, you try to force your imagined event on what happened and wont accept insiders to correct
208 rheinwaldner : Some other do. None, we seem to be in an agreement about that (and other things too). I am a fireman too. The paste stays in higher concentration at
209 777ER : These threads have now a good way to discuss issues with the B787 but have now become a thread where insults against other users are happening frequen
210 XT6Wagon : Dude, We build AIRCRAFT from flammable, possibly explosive materials. Aluminum is used as rocket fuel. Carbon.. Well what do you think Charcoal is? B
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 B787 Part 7 posted Wed Jan 30 2013 14:31:29 by 777ER
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