Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Grounds 787, Part 10  
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12339 posts, RR: 18
Posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 33088 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Link to previous thread FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9 (by 777ER Feb 9 2013 in Civil Aviation)

WARNING: Due to thread 9 going off topic quickly and turning into a 'battle ground', the moderators will be watching this thread frequently and ANY offending/rule breaking posts will be removed. Please respect each others right to have their opinion.

[Edited 2013-02-20 00:15:16 by SA7700]

233 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1543 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 33084 times:

The Boeing solution, mentioned in The Seattle Times, of a robust containment should hopefully be enough to get the B 787 flying again. It takes care of the safety aspect. I really do not think that the flying public will take a burning battery safely contained worse than for example a failing engine.

User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2838 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 33015 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 1):
I really do not think that the flying public will take a burning battery safely contained worse than for example a failing engine.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. People hear fire and airplane in the same sentence and it really freaks them out. No matter if it a roll burning in the galley ovens or the battery, people get really uncomfortable. I like Boeing and would fly the 787 the moment it was back in service, but the general public doesn't understand the complexities and how safe the plane would be with a true permanent fix.
Pat



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7959 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 33014 times:

OK so to recap some, Japanese airlines (NH, JL) have cancelled 787 flights through the end of March, and LO through the end of October....... What about UA, AI, and QR? I find it quite hard to follow these threads to keep up.


Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7303 posts, RR: 57
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 32897 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 1):
The Boeing solution, mentioned in The Seattle Times, of a robust containment should hopefully be enough to get the B 787 flying again.

This is nothing more than a rumor of a possible solution to an unknown problem. Boeing have said nothing publicly of the concept.

I too hope that this containment is approved so we can relaunch aircraft before the northern summer peak, but I really fear that we are looking at the end of the IATA Summer schedule before aircraft will be relaunched. We then fall into the trap of aircraft arriving when they are least needed - the start of the winter timetable.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 32742 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 4):
This is nothing more than a rumor of a possible solution to an unknown problem.

More information here:-

"Boeing is set to propose a short-term fix for batteries on its grounded 787 Dreamliner passenger jets, according to a report by the Seattle Times.

"The Seattle Times reports Boeing will propose building fireproof titanium or steel containment boxes around lithium ion battery cells that, in the event of a fire, would vent gases outside of the plane. The newspaper reports Boeing could submit the proposal to the Federal Aviation Administration as early as this week in an effort to get 787s flying again by May.

"Boeing is simultaneously working on a comprehensive redesign of the batteries in a process that could take nine months or longer, according to the report."


http://www.stltoday.com/business/col...b-836d-56c7-a249-033003a4607e.html



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7303 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 32659 times:

NAV20, thats a repost from another article with a more positive spin - no new information at all from St Louis.

From the original article: http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...ology/2020373450_boeing787xml.html


"Boeing will not disclose any details of the solutions it is working on."

"investigators have still not pinpointed the cause."

"it’s unclear if the FAA is ready yet to accept containment of an overheated battery cell rather than prevention."

"the short-term fix will take at least three months to design, test, certify and retrofit,"


And from an analyst in that article...

“Boeing is trying to play it down to some degree, hopeful the solution is just around the corner,”

“We believe the grounding costs Boeing over $25 million a month in direct costs, and the total cost to Boeing could be over $1 billion.”

"Doubtful that Boeing will easily persuade regulators to let the 787 return to service soon."

"Polish national airline LOT on Thursday declared it’s not planning on having its 787s back in service before October. “I think even October is optimistic,” said Pilarski."



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 32636 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 2):
eople hear fire and airplane in the same sentence and it really freaks them out. No matter if it a roll burning in the galley ovens or the battery, people get really uncomfortable. I like Boeing and would fly the 787 the moment it was back in service, but the general public doesn't understand the complexities and how safe the plane would be with a true permanent fix.

Just guessing here, but I would expect that once Boeing has proven they have a containment system robust enough to survive a battery fire that consumes the entire battery (so it burns the maximum time), such a fix will be considered sufficient to allow the 787 to return to service, but Boeing will still be ordered to either develop a more stable Lithium-Ion battery or switch to a NiCad-based replacement.

As for the flying public, I would not be surprised if it quickly moves to the back of their mind and then out of their conscious thought as people have short attention spans.


User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3309 posts, RR: 30
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 32590 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
"The Seattle Times reports Boeing will propose building fireproof titanium or steel containment boxes around lithium ion battery cells that, in the event of a fire, would vent gases outside of the plane.

Would the combination of such a box and the Lithium-Ion battery end up weighing close to what a conventional Ni-Cad installation would be?



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7303 posts, RR: 57
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 32577 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
I would not be surprised if it quickly moves to the back of their mind and then out of their conscious thought as people have short attention spans.

Agree 100% - the news cycle has become very short indeed. I really hope that this aircraft is up and flying before the Summer peak - however I fear it will be longer.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 32547 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 6):
no new information at all from St Louis.

Agreed, BestWestern, not confirmed by Boeing. On the other hand, though, it's the only thing that Boeing CAN propose? The alternative - spending upwards of a year re-designing and re-certifying the aeroplane with totally-different batteries - is just about 'unthinkable' in business terms. It would mean thousands of lost jobs, not just at Boeing but among all the suppliers worldwide; and untold amounts of money having to be found to compensate the customer airlines. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the 'spiralling costs' of that sort of scenario might result in the whole of Boeing having to close down?

My guess is therefore that the proposal will be made - and, further, that the FAA will eventually approve it.

[Edited 2013-02-17 17:53:55]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineZKCIF From Lithuania, joined Oct 2010, 344 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 32402 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 6):
We believe the grounding costs Boeing over $25 million a month in direct costs

if this is true, the direct costs are next to nothing. a couple of brand new 737s per month will cover that easily  
Quoting BestWestern (Reply 6):
the total cost to Boeing could be over $1 billion.”

What does THIS mean? Do they run into a 1-billion-loss if the delay is 6 months long? 9 months long?

I tried to calculate very roughly the expenses for airlines.
I am likely very far off the mark but my idea is:
The lifetime of a 787 is 25 years as that of any other contemporary plane. In 2037, there will be far superior planes anyway.
The acquisition costs of one plane probably were in the area of 120 million USD (heavy discounts for early frames, etc.)
one plane is expected to operate for about 9000 days (25yrs*365 days minus heavy checks).
when the plane is on the ground, it gets no extra cycles and requires comparatively little maintenance thus has insignificant costs in terms of spares, etc.
as a result, each day of grounding costs 120mil/9000days= 13,333USD of the plane's value, and one month is 400,000USD worth. how far off the real mark am i? thanks a lot for your answers.

[Edited 2013-02-17 18:24:46]

User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6539 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 32372 times:

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 222):
Where did the 2.5 times heavier value come from? I have an MIT paper showing that Li-ion has a specific energy of 150 Wh/kg, compared to 50 for Ni-Cad.

The Yuasa LVP65 spec sheet, which has been linked several times in these threads, tells that energy density is 101 Wh/kg. Those 150 Wh/kg indicated by MIT is more like dreaming, or hopefully a typo.

Maybe MIT was looking at only the active interior of the cell, without the supporting structure, connectors and such. But a cell in the shape of a wet towel in a plastic bag isn't very useful.

50 Wh/kg for Ni-Cad is also on the optimistic side. 40 is more like a realistic average.

But these number naturally vary with maker and other specs, such as how rugged they are designed to be.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2289 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 31865 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Just guessing here, but I would expect that once Boeing has proven they have a containment system robust enough to survive a battery fire that consumes the entire battery (so it burns the maximum time), such a fix will be considered sufficient to allow the 787 to return to service, but Boeing will still be ordered to either develop a more stable Lithium-Ion battery or switch to a NiCad-based replacement.

How to proove a containment?
IMO Boeing should build 10 of them and let burn down 10 batteries within the aircraft. After that examine the impact. That would be aproper test, that could also restore a minimum of confidence. Generally I agree however with those, who think any other burning battery is not something Boeing or the FAA especially can afford.

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 8):
Would the combination of such a box and the Lithium-Ion battery end up weighing close to what a conventional Ni-Cad installation would be?

Not fully, but the advantage starts dissapearing.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 12):
Quoting bonusonus (Reply 222):
Where did the 2.5 times heavier value come from? I have an MIT paper showing that Li-ion has a specific energy of 150 Wh/kg, compared to 50 for Ni-Cad.

The Yuasa LVP65 spec sheet, which has been linked several times in these threads, tells that energy density is 101 Wh/kg. Those 150 Wh/kg indicated by MIT is more like dreaming, or hopefully a typo.

About 100 Wh/kg is not really progressive, which is good. Resarch is tackling 600 Wh/kg, but this is something for the future: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/05/sion-20100501.html


User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2838 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 31795 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Just guessing here, but I would expect that once Boeing has proven they have a containment system robust enough to survive a battery fire that consumes the entire battery (so it burns the maximum time), such a fix will be considered sufficient to allow the 787 to return to service, but Boeing will still be ordered to either develop a more stable Lithium-Ion battery or switch to a NiCad-based replacement.

As for the flying public, I would not be surprised if it quickly moves to the back of their mind and then out of their conscious thought as people have short attention spans.

I for sure agree with you on the first part. I think that would absolutely get the 787 back into service. As for the flying public I'm not sure initially. Most probably couldn't pick it out of a lineup if you put it next to a 777 and an A330, but when they are booking that trip to Poland or Tokyo and see that "Aircraft Type:787-8 Dreamliner" some people are going to get nervous. Obviously their fear would be unneeded after the fix, but it may exist. I certainly wouldn't have a problem booking it.
Pat



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7303 posts, RR: 57
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 31730 times:

Quoting ZKCIF (Reply 11):

Over and above the actual costs of the repairs and analysis, The analyst here is also probably including the NPV effect of shunting the entire delivery timetable back a further nine months - $100 in todays money is the same as $88 paid in one year if Boeing have an average cost of capital of 12%.

Delays like this wreck profitability in large projects, throw out company cash flow forecasts, and damage company valuations. Basically what is happening is boeing are manufacturing today for payment in say nine months after completion. Profitable companies go out of business because they run out of cash due to slow payment of bills -this wont happen to Boeing - expect bonds to be Secured - but probably is a part of the worries of the analyst.

Oh the joys of project financing when the shareholder wants a return yesterday. Lucky I'm not an accountant.

On top of this I can only imagine the inventory cost of the dozens of 787s and future parts.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinemke717spotter From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2465 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 31496 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 3):
Japanese airlines (NH, JL) have cancelled 787 flights through the end of March, and LO through the end of October

I also reponded to this in another thread, but surely its not going to take THAT long to sort out the battery issue? What's going to happen if the FAA ban gets lifted in May for example? Are they just going to have their five 787s just sit in a corner somewhere until October? Hopefully this isn't set in stone because I'm probably going to Poland in July and was looking forward to flying the 787.



Will you watch the Cleveland Browns and the Detroit Lions on Sunday? Only if coach Eric Mangini resigned after a loss.
User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1406 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 31344 times:

Quoting mke717spotter (Reply 16):
I also reponded to this in another thread, but surely its not going to take THAT long to sort out the battery issue? What's going to happen if the FAA ban gets lifted in May for example? Are they just going to have their five 787s just sit in a corner somewhere until October?

I would guess they would park the 767s and fly the 787s, just to save fuel costs. Keep the 767s they can't return to the leasers as spares and look for some charter work.

It could be awhile. A month for Boeing to get the fix certified. A month until the first plane is flying. A month to modify the remaining 50 planes. That is 3 months before LOT gets their 2 787s back in the air. Could be more or less.

LOT is just basically saying we are not going to schedule any flights until we see the 787s back in the air. With the 787s long history of delays, IMHO this is not a bad idea.


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2168 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 30575 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
As for the flying public, I would not be surprised if it quickly moves to the back of their mind and then out of their conscious thought as people have short attention spans.

Until, of course, the next battery burns - contained or not.

Let's face it, Boeing is going to need a permanent solution.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently onlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1026 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 30238 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Just guessing here, but I would expect that once Boeing has proven they have a containment system robust enough to survive a battery fire that consumes the entire battery (so it burns the maximum time), such a fix will be considered sufficient to allow the 787 to return to service...

That's all well and good, but the first time a 787 with the new containment system rocks up at some airport with streaks of smoke/electrolite down the side ejected by the improved venting system, and lots of engineer-type folks start peering into lower compartments, and it's dragged off to some hangar and the next flight is cancelled... Or a 787 diverts and the fire crews are called out for a suspected battery fire... Someone's going to notice, the press are going to report it... The headlines are going to say something like - even though it was contained and the airplane didn't burn, there's been another 787 battery fire... Not good PR for Boeing, for the airplane, or for the operating airlines. Even with a temporary fix, how many battery further fires can be noticed/reported, even if they're totally and safely contained, before the travelling public and the FAA get the willies? Could the 787 survive with a temporary fix until a permanent fix is introduced, if ongoing evidence of occasional or even regualar battery fires arose?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 30219 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10):
I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the 'spiralling costs' of that sort of scenario might result in the whole of Boeing having to close down?

I think you're painting the devil on the wall. I can't see a scenario where scrapping 787 would mean the end of Boeing. Nor can I see a scenario where the 787 is scrapped because of this battery issue. It takes something where there isn't alternatives.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10):
My guess is therefore that the proposal will be made - and, further, that the FAA will eventually approve it.

It is a very serious accusation you make with nothing more than prejudice to support it.


User currently offlineLJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4477 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 29843 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 14):
Most probably couldn't pick it out of a lineup if you put it next to a 777 and an A330, but when they are booking that trip to Poland or Tokyo and see that "Aircraft Type:787-8 Dreamliner" some people are going to get nervou

The majority of the flying public will forget the problems as soon as it's flying again. You see already that the media attention is not so high (apart from some outlets) thus people will forget (or have already forgotten).

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 9):
I really hope that this aircraft is up and flying before the Summer peak - however I fear it will be longer.

This will be very important for some airlines. Airlines like Norwegian have big plans with the 787 for S13, and missing the Summer peak means missing the most profitable time of the year (and no NYC and BKK for DY this Summer).


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1465 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days ago) and read 29627 times:

There is talk now, from ever increasing circles and not all of them repeating each other, that we're looking at a lengthy delay. The sources usually quotes in very conventional terms; weeks, few months, even a year. While that may be true, in fact it's certain one of them will be, it is, however, an imprecise measurement and unfit for a.net purposes.

To rectify this shortcoming I made some quick calculations on the back of my laptop, partially (well, fully then) based on post counts and sequel numbers on the "FAA Grounds 787, Part xxx" thread. I shall not divulge the intensity of the mathematics used, merely state the results as they came out. Thus I can say, with a level of certainty not uncommon to these boards though equally far removed from actual knowledge, that the 787 will fly again at the exact moment post number 27.501 is published in Part 103 of this thread.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days ago) and read 29577 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
I can't see a scenario where scrapping 787 would mean the end of Boeing. Nor can I see a scenario where the 787 is scrapped because of this battery issue.

Misunderstanding, I think (hope?), cmf? I don't see any prospect of the 787 being scrapped - do you? I'm talking about the possibility of the authorities refusing to allow any further use of these batteries, thus forcing Boeing to spend a year or more developing, installing, and certifying new batteries straight away. And that, during that 'year-plus,' Boeing would have to close down the whole 787 production line, suspend deliveries, and compensate both the airlines already flying 787s and the customers counting on deliveries in said year-plus? The costs of any such 'programme' would be simply colossal?

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10):
My guess is therefore that the proposal will be made - and, further, that the FAA will eventually approve it.

It is a very serious accusation you make with nothing more than prejudice to support it.

For the life of me I can't see how that sentence is in any way an 'accusation'? I'm just saying that Boeing will make the sensible suggestion that they install better 'containments' and then develop and certify more 'foolproof' batteries ASAP. And that the FAA, after full consideration, will agree to that strategy and lift the grounding 'on terms'?

How is that 'accusing' either party of anything?

[Edited 2013-02-18 04:15:49]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinegulfstream650 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 29264 times:

I have a few questions:

1. Fire aside we can all agree that the battery system is faulty. If indeed there is another failure, where will the power come from to power the systems? I understand that the new systems require a quick-charge power source vs. conventional methods.

2. Even if the FAA approves the temporary fix, what will the implications be to the current ETOPS certifications?

Thanks



I don't proclaim to be the best pilot in the world but I'm safe
25 BestWestern : But what caused the fault is as yet, unknown. Hitting the summer peak is critical for all airlines. The whole Norwegian long haul business model is i
26 s5daw : Could it be a difference between stored useful energy and total energy? I know that LiPo cells must not drop below certain voltage or they go into th
27 Post contains links Revelation : I agree with what you are saying but would not describe this as an 'unknown' problem. There's lots known about the problem, unfortunately falling sho
28 cmf : I've reread your comments multiple times and I don't see a way they can be read different from how I read them the first. It will be scrapped on day
29 BestWestern : Oh, my blood boils. From the hype before the Qantas purchase, through roll-out through all the delays to the 'dreamliner' the PR team have had far too
30 Post contains images NAV20 : Thanks, cmf - guess that more or less clears our disagreement up. I guess it would come down to 'cash flow,' cmf. On the face of it, and 'stating the
31 packsonflight : I think that it is impossible for the regulators to accept any soulution that does not fully comply with the special conditions set for the Li batter
32 AngMoh : This was Cessna's solution. It is not certified yet, but the expected time for recertification is 18 months. How can Boeing achieve the same in 3 mon
33 Revelation : It's hard to argue that, on the basis of the 7/8/07 roll-out alone. On the other hand, there's more than enough reason to include engineering and man
34 DTW2HYD : Layman's guess would be Electonic Window Tinting + Sophisticated AVOD with Big LCD + Color Shifting LED lighting. Software fix for the battery system
35 Post contains images Stitch : And Boeing has at least 90 engineers in Japan working on it. The batteries are the last and final power source for aircraft systems. The primary powe
36 Post contains images cmf : It is always down to cash flow so, sure. But Boeing's financials are strong. They have a lot of cash flow from other programs. The programs that have
37 Revelation : You seem to be implying that the FAA will suspend the failure rate part of the special condition until "later", even though the NTSB and others have
38 justloveplanes : I think Boeing is on the right track. To restate some previous comments, containment design can be very straightforward... Explosion proof containers
39 Stitch : As I read it, the immediate need is for Boeing to develop, test, and confirm to the FAA's satisfaction that they have a containment system that will
40 RickNRoll : Don't forget the "Mythical Man Month". This is going to take time, no matter how many engineers you put on the job. I do agree that Boeing is doing a
41 glbltrvlr : Most people have no clue what type of aircraft they are flying on, even if it is printed on the itinerary. But if the airlines see it as a problem, i
42 rheinwaldner : No, the stated energy densities does only consider energy that can be unloaded. You are correct, that a small rest will always stay in the battery. L
43 Revelation : I don't know what you are reading, but it would seem to be quite inconsistent with the well known "special conditions". I guess time will tell if suc
44 kanban : the battery in the containment box is a line replaceable unit (LRU) with external plugs. the unit would never be opened in the plane but sent to a ce
45 Stitch : Special Condition 1 appears to be met with the current design based on reports the charging system passed inspection, however investigators continue
46 Kaiarahi : Why would Boeing bother communicating with the FAA through the press when they're working directly with them (and the NTSB) every day? Lest everybody
47 7BOEING7 : That's true, however considering the extremely small number of events ( 1-747, 2-737 ??) compared to the number of flights the odds of another event
48 RayChuang : My guess (personally!) is that Boeing's ultimate solution is to switch to a dry electrode lithium-ion battery--a newer-style battery design not so pro
49 gulfstream650 : I really don't see how an organization such as the FAA would allow this tempory fix to suffice in order for revenue flights to proceed. It just simply
50 Kaiarahi : @ 7BOEING7 You may be right (especially since the FAA has a brand new administrator who's likely to be cautious at the beginning of his mandate), but
51 ComeAndGo : My post was deleted. In the article in the Seattle times it confirms that Boeing sent 90 engineers to Japan to design a new battery. ThIs new battery
52 Revelation : Thanks for the clarification. It wasn't clear to me that the post I replied to (#39) included changing the chemistry. If you're including that, such
53 Stitch : I was and yes it will. This is why I could see the FAA not forcing Boeing to park the plane until the new battery is ready provided they have a conta
54 Post contains links Wolbo : Ostrower tweeted this link to a short Boeing video on the 787 batteries and questioned who it was given to.
55 BestWestern : Ostrower should ask his buddies in Boeing that question. Alas He feels all left out by boeing... "It definitely was not members of the media" boo hoo
56 cmf : Difference is they had a fix they felt addressed the problem they had identified as the cause.
57 stasisLAX : Boeing will need a solid "investor relations campaign" as much as a public relations campaign. These technical failures with the batteries has not ye
58 prebennorholm : The Yuasa LVP65 spec sheet data are based on charging to 4.025V and discharge to 2.7V. The 2.7V figure is rather conservative. I wouldn't mind going
59 gulfstream650 : I'm scratching my head at this point. Who were those people? For all we know they were pulled in off the street and paid $$ for their time. They cert
60 Stitch : It might have been an internal Boeing presentation for employees. In a company that large and diverse, I expect a significant number of them have no
61 BoeingVista : Looks like a focus group. No questions asked or answered so just a PR fluff piece. I don't think that events like this will help Boeing's credibility
62 Part147 : I plan to discuss this with aircraft engineering students later on (we've been watching these events evolve over the last few weeks)... I'l let you k
63 Post contains links BoeingVista : http://video.boeing.com/services/pla...0eUADvmgWcuM2F&bctid=2167891130001 There is also a 30 minutes long version..
64 packsonflight : I am a bit curious too... Interesting that Sinnet only mentions the secondary role of the battery on the 787, starting up the APU and initial power u
65 Post contains links flood : NY Times: Japan Finds Swelling in APU battery of ANA aircraft involved in emergency landing: "I do not know the exact discussion taken by the research
66 BoeingVista : So this opens a new front, the next logical question is how may installed or returned 787 batteries exhibited signs of swelling
67 LTC8K6 : Finding the swelling battery cells could be very good if it gives them info on what is going on with the batteries/cells.
68 par13del : I think space is the primary issue in the EE bays, not weight. So mock up are out of the question, one must actually risk life and limb in this day o
69 francoflier : Stupid question: Have all other installed batteries been removed from the rest of the fleet and 'autopsied'? I'm sure the answer is in the half milli
70 Antoniemey : Then apparently you don't understand the risks... In the incidents that have occurred, there was little to no danger to the aircraft or passengers. T
71 AeroWesty : Good question, I've been wondering the same. I've not read that any other used batteries have been inspected, but I certainly hope the investigation
72 ServantLeader : Right, and the overheating battery emitted a burning smell which forced the plane to make an emergency landing and evacuate the passengers via inflat
73 Antoniemey : That is NOT what I said.
74 RickNRoll : Which is a serious enough issue to ground the fleet indefinitely.
75 XT6Wagon : More likely to die in your shower tonight than die flying around the world in a 787 (with fuel stops). More likely to get hit by a drunk driver. (eve
76 prebennorholm : Those figures are "current provided for airplane power-up". They do not tell anything about the power capabilities of those batteries. From the 787 b
77 DTW2HYD : In summary they need to wine and dine 4 Network + 3 Cable so called "Aviation Experts". Give some exclusive access to couple of batteries and some la
78 SEA : It appears as if JL have removed their titles from the 788 at BOS. https://twitter.com/martysg/status/304063194480140289
79 PHX787 : This is surprising! Is the window covered up too?
80 RickNRoll : Are they going to RMA it?
81 LTC8K6 : Maybe they are going to test fly it?
82 rheinwaldner : Bingo. So you think that just making a new containment and keeping this requirement broken will be enough to bring the 787 in the air again? Nonconfo
83 gemuser : Yes! It's called a wavier or concession against the requirement, a standard procedure that's been used time & time again. I see no reason (public
84 Post contains images BoeingVista : Looks like they are going to DHL it back to Seattle by road freight as they can't air freight the batteries
85 Post contains links rikkus67 : http://www.upworthy.com/see-the-scie...e-world-or-at-least-your-battery-l I found this brief scientific blurb of an alternate energy source quite inte
86 RobK : Those are pretty much my thoughts on the situation as well. The FAA are still clearing the egg from their faces after the first round of blazing batt
87 rheinwaldner : Please stop joking. You are making some wild claims and owe us some evidence that knowingly unmet certification requirements have ever been waivered
88 Post contains links freakyrat : Boeing seems to have found a way to fix the battery problems and hopes flights of the Dreamliner can resume in April. http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/
89 Post contains links aviaponcho : Did you get this one http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=172470522 Miswiring between APU / Main batteries... What can we think of tha
90 Post contains links gemuser : Please stop being so emotional! It is normal practice, I use to process them. The Boeing 787-8 has a "before further flight" Airworthiness Directive
91 Post contains links NAV20 : Something 'new,' I suspect. I'm arguably quite good with words, but just about illiterate with physics/electricity - but this story appears strongly t
92 Post contains links robffm2 : Meanwhile the NYT reports that Boeing is looking for additional parking lots. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/re...=1361366994-rwnEXFGloP0a4PZiDzzEb
93 jbcarioca : Recent events do indicate that there is a quality control problem with the B787 electrical system. That may be in manufacture, maintenance or both. In
94 rheinwaldner : From which publicly available information would you derive that? So that would support my view (no evidence of the opposite). Look, we need examples
95 Post contains images Stitch : UA found the same on one of their 787s when they performed inspections after the diversion to MSY.
96 CF-CPI : Now that mis-wiring has been identified on one of the 'problem' aircraft, I am curious (as I am sure others are) as to how widespread it is across th
97 starrion : So if they fix what is probably some form of sneak circuit in the wiring, gap the Li-ion cells so they don't cascade into thermal runaway, and strengt
98 Kaiarahi : TWA800. The interim solution was to fly at all times with a specified minimum amount of fuel in the centre wing tank to reduce the risk of vapour bui
99 Post contains links Boeing717200 : Glimmer of hope? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing...-dreamliner-battery-172708729.html
100 sweair : I don't buy any anonymous info, the only info I trust is official from Boeing, NTSB and FAA, the rest is best taken with a huge amount of salt. Rememb
101 rheinwaldner : Good point, but IMO TWA800 was not a comparable case: - In case of TWA800 the certification requirements AND the design have been validated by decade
102 Kaiarahi : Agreed, it's not completely comparable. But it did involve a secondary fix (minimum fuel / battery containment) while the root cause (ignition source
103 Wisdom : If the miswiring is confirmed, it would acknowledge my theory that the current fed to the batteries by the wild frequency generators was "impure", cau
104 7BOEING7 : Filling the center tank to a minimum level was not a half baked idea and decreased even farther the already extremely remote chance of another failur
105 7BOEING7 : Is the NTSB ever happy?
106 LTC8K6 : The miswiring article seems to be saying that while there was a wiring problem, it didn't cause the battery problem.
107 gemuser : Up thread & linked articles. No it does not! It simply means that it would require too much research to prove it to you, who obviously wishes to
108 Kaiarahi : Agreed - leaving aside the language of the post I was responding to, I was looking for an example where the FAA was satisfied (at least on an interim
109 Post contains links AeroWesty : The question of where are the grounded 787s parked comes up from time to time. From a link in an article I was reading, it appears they're in 17 airpo
110 ServantLeader : Ah, a person in the know -- your opinion please on this supposition: The 787 situation is obviously not an everyday rubber stamper -- it has become a
111 strfyr51 : Here's Hoping that Boeing's "batteries" are in place, But I wonder when the new Battery Cases will be available with the Mods Installed?? Right now 10
112 Post contains links PanAmPaul : Not sure if this is covered in the past 112 posts in this thread (I read as many as I could) but Boeing's top commercial airplane execs are going to m
113 cornutt : They're not. But that's in their job description.
114 DTW2HYD : FAA is no less or more lax with 787 battery than any other certification they do every day. No doubt this issue has high visibility and they have to
115 prebennorholm : Technically I do not doubt that the temporary fix is okay. I shouldn't wonder if this fix is mostly identical to Airbus' original design for the A350.
116 gemuser : IMHO totally wrong. I assume that the Manager Seattle Aircraft Certification Office is a professional engineer, he/she will ensure that ANY solution
117 gemuser : IF they are convinced that that the waiver is technically sound, I would think so and I really really doubt that Boeing, the Seattle ACO or the FAA in
118 kanban : I'm confused as to whether you're trying to add to the knowledge base or argue points that most of us are content to wait and see what the FAA decide
119 airtechy : I'm not sure I understand the timing. At the time the batteries caught on "fire", I would think that neither had any current draw. One was in the air
120 hOmsar : Virgin Atlantic's new slogan? "No Li-Ion 4 No Fire"
121 ltbewr : I wonder how insurers for airlines, leasing companies, Boeing and component makers will react if a temp fix is done to the 787's battery systems. They
122 Post contains links stasisLAX : Boeing could have the 787 back into the air within 2 months, according to this New York Times article from today (2/20/13). Special insulation (possib
123 rcair1 : The Japanese aviation authority did not lead the FAA. No CAA lead the FAA. Some Airlines (ANA and JAL) chose, voluntarily, to stop flying the 787 bef
124 Post contains links BoeingVista : Hold up, Boeing have gone ahead and ordered these new containment boxes before even running the 'fix' past the FAA? http://seattletimes.com/html/busi
125 flyglobal : Sounds plausible as a fix, be it called temporary of final. So it might prevent a fire in a call to spread around making the problem 1/8th in consequ
126 XT6Wagon : and? This isn't a grand conspiracy. How do you think they certify parts in the first place? They certainly didn't ask the FAA every time they ordered
127 gemuser : True but to get the AD lifted they need the approval of the Manager Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, I'll bet Boeing engineers are talking to h
128 bikerthai : When you have 50+ planes grounded, you don't do things in series. If you can save a few days lead time by ordering these parts early and get them to
129 DTW2HYD : No supplier would make one or two boxes as per custom specs. Even if they do it will cost almost same as 100 boxes. So it is easy to place order for
130 ServantLeader : The cost of the containment boxes isn't even a blip on the screen compared to the 787 program cost overruns proper -- no material risk to Boeing to p
131 Stitch : The FAA did Boeing no favors in grounding the 787, but prematurely lifting said grounding won't do them any favors, either. Boeing's goal is to get t
132 par13del : I do not see the FAA approving the containment based on computer simulation, nor do I see the FAA getting involved in the design, they are going to m
133 JHwk : From the limited detail in the article, it sounds like the APU could not backfeed the battery, but it could contribute to unintended current draw. Th
134 FriendlySkies : Boeing is certainly aware of that, but is also aware than in a complex system such as this, it may be months or even years before a root cause is nai
135 Stitch : I'm one of the people who have been arguing that the FAA would accept a stronger containment system with the existing battery as an interim fix to li
136 sweair : Is there any news on a cause or is it still a mystery? Never finding the smoking gun would be the worst thing that could happen. I am perplexed that s
137 Revelation : Seems that Boeing is going to give it a go to see if a solution with better containment, monitoring, internal stiffness and isolation will pass muste
138 par13del : Even is more durable batteries is not a requirement, I'm certain that the other airlines who had not yet had problems with their batteries have noted
139 Post contains images breiz : Will this have any consequence for Lion Air?
140 hamster : How did United get permission from FAA to fly 787 from Houston to Seattle during the grounding. Take me through this. Did they need attorneys? How was
141 FriendlySkies : When did that happen? Last I heard UA's 787 fleet was 4x at IAH, 1x at LAX, and 1x at NRT. Boeing flew an airplane from FTW back to PAE that was stra
142 ADent : If Boeing is going to stay Li-Ion (any technology, any improvements) they need better containment. Those boxes will be needed (unless they wise up and
143 FriendlySkies : If the FAA signs off on a fix, China will too (maybe after some grumbling). They can't afford to create poor trade relations with the US.
144 gemuser : This is a standard procedure. The operator applies for a waiver, giving details of what they want to do, the FAA assesses the application, there mayb
145 kanban : The absence of mention is most likely because they have not selected the most advantageous chemistry, or the best choice is a lab version with no pro
146 Post contains links NAV20 : Thanks for that, kanban, most illuminating. It looks as if Boeing are now aiming at a 'complete fix' (that is, including modifications to the batteri
147 RickNRoll : The regularity of this occurring, along with the current ban on trasporting the conveniently, makes them problematic still. Just saying it's the cust
148 Stitch : It is the customer's responsibility to adhere to the operating instructions for the product. If anything, Boeing's guidelines for battery draw are li
149 francoflier : I'm part of those who think the idea of a better containment box is disturbing. This amounts to pretty much accepting that the batteries will keep cat
150 JHwk : I think that is being described incorrectly. I would have expected just an air gap to prevent conduction, but what is essentially needed is just some
151 Stitch : Which is why Boeing and their suppliers are working on a new battery. But it would prevent the other cells from going thermally berserk. So instead o
152 Post contains images NAV20 : Boeing have often said that they're thinking about increased separation. But the mention of plates being inserted between the cells didn't come from
153 Post contains links fpetrutiu : "Boeing Co. is reportedly set to present regulators with a redesigned battery for its 787 Dreamliner that they hope will satisfy safety concerns. The
154 kanban : There are many requirements for the airlines in the area of operation and maintenance.. violating these voids warranties. the battery depletion to th
155 7BOEING7 : I don't see anything here that says the customers would be doing any battery servicing other than removing one whole battery and replacing it with an
156 Stitch : This statement could be that Boeing is producing kits so that airlines or MROs can replace the existing containment vessel and battery pack with the
157 PHX787 : I don't know if this was posted yet but UA delayed the launch of the DEN flight until the end of May....
158 Post contains links ADent : Before the grounding there were 787s ready to deliver to China. Looks like 7 787s are about ready to go to China Southern and Hainan, but waiting on
159 rheinwaldner : So the storyline has changed. No "a better containment is enough to fly"-talk anymore. I still don't get, why some believed the opposite. Boeing rece
160 packsonflight : The proposal for redesigning the battery Boeing is submitting to the FAA apparently consists of two major changes: Improved containment in the case of
161 Stitch : It doesn't. I imagine that is why Yuasa is said to be developing a new battery.
162 Post contains links packsonflight : But still Boeing is advocating this as a permanent battery fix http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...ogy/2020398769_boeingboxesxml.html
163 Post contains links Revelation : Yes, I too find it interesting that there's no mention of anything being done to improve the individual cells, rather it's all focused on the packagi
164 bikerthai : I wish Tom was here to explain everything. But I venture to guess he may have been told to keep quiet until the full details are presented to FAA and
165 ContnlEliteCMH : Customer misuse is *a* reason why the batteries can be depleted to or beyond a level at which the onboard system cannot recharge them, but it's not t
166 gulfstream650 : Agreed. My perspective is that the plane should stay grounded until the new fix is installed and approved by the FAA. No bush mechanics; it has to be
167 Post contains links Revelation : IMHO the NYT article at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/bu...-propose-battery-fixes-to-faa.html indicates that Boeing is trying to get a non-tempor
168 rcair1 : I believe this is using the term "battery" to include the entire assembly - not the "cells" in a battery. If you ignore all the conspiracy theories a
169 Revelation : Indeed, but it's not clear to me that this is sufficient. I think it's safe to presume most commercial 787 pilots will divert if only one cell goes i
170 Stitch : I would like to believe the end-goal of these redesigns is to not just prevent a thermal runaway in a single cell from propagating to other cells, bu
171 blrsea : Would these have any effect on the battery efficiency itself? If not, why wasn't this thought of earlier itself as effects of thermal runaway were we
172 ikramerica : What's truly silly about this whole thing is that the two failures were not in the same system, not the same kind of failure, and yet were "linked" be
173 sankaps : Today's Wall Street Journal has some interesting tidbits relating to Boeing CEO McNerney's reactions to, and handling of, the crisis. Two things espec
174 kanban : Glad to see you're hanging in there while we wait for clear answers.. My comment was mainly relative to the journalism which to me alluded to airline
175 Post contains images lightsaber : I was razed on a.net for predicting the 787 grounding would last a few months. I'm sad the grounding looks like it will go 50%+ longer than I estimate
176 ServantLeader : The 787 program has been plagued with problems since 2008 when delivery dates first started to slip -- that's a 5 year run of being behind the curve
177 sweair : Please keep the thread on topic, all the interesting information gets lost in all crap posted that has nothing to do with the topic! What is the lates
178 Post contains links Revelation : Not sure what you are referring to. Ref: http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...ncorrect-wiring-found-ana-787-0221 There definitely are some loose en
179 7BOEING7 : All of which on any other airplane (except the A380 or the 787 five years from now) wouldn't have sen the light of day.
180 Post contains links KarelXWB : Now updated by Reuters: - Boeing will not propose abandoning the lithium-ion batteries - The proposal includes insulation between the cells of the ba
181 Post contains links Revelation : Call me skeptical, but I don't buy that. I've been around corporate life too long to think no one is working on plan B, and this statement from an un
182 tugger : I dunno, once I realized that any "Plan B" full scale change out of what is used would require a recert and that time that required, I think the comp
183 JHwk : Agree. They are admitting that this is the extent of what they could do in a palatable time frame. It doesn't preclude more improvements moving forwa
184 KarelXWB : I'm wondering if Boeing really needs a "plan B" (unless the FAA wants it). It's very common to replace aircraft parts often and there is no problem if
185 Stitch : Assuming the two failures were not a statistical fluke, I would have to believe that the airlines would want batteries with a longer MTBF - and here
186 Revelation : IMHO an interesting contrast to what the FAA is saying:
187 tugger : I don't see why both can't be applied and be OK. There is no way to overlook cost, even when the "safety of the flying public" is involved. That is w
188 Post contains links CALTECH : Boeing has a plan for the fix. AP sources: Boeing proposes battery fix for 787s http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-boe...es-battery-fix-787s-205323948.h
189 Post contains links PanAmPaul : The FAA issued a statement today after the Boeing meeting, as did Boeing. At least the two sides are talking. FAA Says Boeing Needs to Address Battery
190 Revelation : I agree, but I'm concerned that it seems the root cause and the probability of failure of the individual cells is not well understood, while we see t
191 BoeingVista : The battery supports emergency functions in case of other failures so you cannot say that battery failures are of no concern as long as they are phys
192 blrsea : I think the MEL checklist already contains checking the battery. The fact that ANA has replaced more than 10 batteries on its 787s so far indicate th
193 7BOEING7 : The MEL probably states you can fly without the APU battery subject to restrictions but probably nothing about the main battery because you can't lea
194 7BOEING7 : True, battery failures are of concern, however if you're down to the Main battery in an emergency it's not your day. The only thing that the battery
195 mke717spotter : So with this new proposed fix, will all the delivered 787s need to fly back to PAE to get their batteries modified, or will it be done on-site?
196 Stitch : It sounds like Boeing might be developing a field-replaceable kit.
197 7BOEING7 : Boeing will put together service bulletin "kits" and ship then to the airlines. They may send out AOG personnel to support the customers installation
198 Post contains images NAV20 : Especially since they'd be flying with the (suspect) unfixed batteries? One thing that puzzles me is that there've been no reports of any further tes
199 7BOEING7 : The two recent flights of ZA005 were for checking out battery instrumentation prior to installing the fix according to the local (KING TV) news earli
200 PW100 : But the current proposed solution . . . . . . may perhaps have an opposite effect. By applying any form of insulation, you do reduce/prevent the casc
201 cornutt : This. If you're down to needing the battery for power in flight, you've had at least four failures: both engines, the APU (or its generator), and the
202 7BOEING7 : The MEL as well as Emergency Checklists are not predicated on multiple failures. The MAIN battery is there (should all 4 engine generators fail) to p
203 Post contains images Unflug : That's correct. Imagine the guy in his position would have this attitude: These threads are certainly not funny. But you made my day today
204 sweair : I still think they aim to change the battery chemistry, but that will be a longer term fix, it will need to be re certified and will take more than a
205 Post contains links scbriml : Until every 787 has been inspected, we won't know if these really are "one off" issues. The Japanese investigators' findings are somewhat worrying -
206 Braybuddy : I'd say it's more to to with the fact we are living in a time when higher and higher saftey standards are not only expected, they are the rule, which
207 rwessel : Technically, a battery is always an assembly of cells, and a single cell device, for example a AA "battery", shouldn't be called a battery at all. Co
208 Kaiarahi : Wrong. 1) The APU and main batteries are identical - they're designed to be interchangeable. 2) They're interconnected - the APU battery also draws o
209 sweair : I would fly on the not fixed 787 tomorrow if possible, I don't think it was ever close to being dangerous as in downing the aircraft even with a flims
210 par13del : I think it is more of a CYA to be honest, the improper wiring should have been discovered on both sides - user and OEM-, Boeing probably knew that wi
211 tharanga : In a hazardous scenario, you want both prevention and containment in your design. If the failure could be happening at a relatively high rate, I'm not
212 Revelation : Excellent summation! I'm still having a hard time understanding how Boeing will demonstrate their claims for the entire system given the root cause f
213 cornutt : Well, you go back to the fault tree analysis. One possible approach is to make a worst-case assumption that a cell will fail on every flight, and go
214 sweair : That would be a very stupid decision of Boeing for sure, they have all eyes watching them and as you have seen huge numbers of anti Boeing posters sh
215 rcair1 : I'm quite sure Boeing is also concerned that the root cause is not determined. It would always be nice to have full root cause understanding of any i
216 sweair : Thank you, a sober voice in the wild jungle here. People need to cool down and think for themselves IMO.
217 7BOEING7 : Assuming all four engines generators trip off, the Main battery takes over the Captain's instruments--within 30 seconds the RAT deploys and takes ove
218 kanban : The batteries are vendor design and therefore procurable directly from the vendor as an LRU. not seeing the assembly plan it;s hard to say which supp
219 tharanga : I don't disagree with other things you said, but I have to protest here - this is an extremely strained and ultimately meaningless analogy. Medicine
220 Revelation : Yes, it's true, but the doctors also work by the "cause no harm" principal so to extend the analogy, there's no mandate for the 787 to fly if it "cau
221 alfablue : There are two cases of fuel starvation incidents. On approach or in cruise. In first category you can put UA DC-8, Avianca B707 and even BA B777 acci
222 Wisdom : Reading some posts here, I see that there is a huge misconception on the role of the battery on the aircraft. The battery's role is not to fill gaps d
223 PlanesNTrains : Yawn. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are not thinking for themselves. In fact, it might mean quite the opposite. -Dav
224 Post contains images rcair1 : As both an engineer and an emergency medical responder I'm well versed in the differences in the 2 fields/approaches. It is interesting that engineer
225 7BOEING7 : True, I guess I should have been more specific. Multiple engine failures (up to 4) are covered because they have in fact happened as well as multiple
226 Post contains links alfablue : They are not as you participate in a clinical study voluntarily and actually you sign a consent form. If a pill does not perform after market introdu
227 PW100 : I fully agree with what you're saying about reducing the fuel load. I also agree that if done correctly (which leaves huge room for discussion . . .
228 Post contains links alfablue : I would say ETOPS is among the biggest issues the 787 faces. Its quite relevant to this threat as we talk a lot about certification and probabilities
229 Wisdom : No that's not what a battery is for. The battery is supposed to hold up critical systems for the duration of the diversion in case of an electrical f
230 7BOEING7 : [quote=Wisdom,reply=229]No that's not what a battery is for. The battery is supposed to hold up critical systems for the duration of the diversion in
231 cornutt : But that's exactly how blade failures in engines are handled. No certification authority requires that an engine design be 100% free from ever throwi
232 PW100 : I don't think I have disputed that. It certainly was not my intention. The poster was stressing that ETOPS did not only apply to twin-engined airfram
233 PW100 : Sigh, I don't know where to start . . . First you write that the battery will have to feed the critical systems for the full duration of the diversion
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 6 posted Sat Jan 26 2013 20:01:59 by NZ1
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, Thread 9 posted Sat Feb 9 2013 21:44:13 by 777ER
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
787 Production/Delivery Thread Part 10 posted Fri Oct 5 2012 06:44:48 by wilco737
LAN Grounds 787 Fleet posted Wed Jan 16 2013 18:00:15 by SCL767