As the majority of the replys in the last thread were off tech/ops nature, please keep this thread for any news/updates on the progress for getting the Dreamliner back flying again. If you wish to discuss the battery issues/fire/APU etc then discuss them in B787 Grounding: Tech/ops Thread Part 2 which can be found here B787 Grounding: Tech/ops Thread Part 2 (by 777ER Mar 9 2013 in Tech Ops)
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.
BestWestern From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6438 posts, RR: 58 Reply 1, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 33206 times:
One thing that I'm conscious of over the last three threads is that the Boeing PR communication spinning machine seems to have gone into overdrive, with ready to start testing in the morning rumors spreading like wildfire.
When we look through the PR spin, do we have any idea when this aircraft will be back flying passengers. I really fear that we are going to miss a large portion of the IATA summer peak that runs from June 1 to October 28.
BlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2515 posts, RR: 25 Reply 2, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 33118 times:
Quoting BestWestern (Reply 1): When we look through the PR spin, do we have any idea when this aircraft will be back flying passengers. I really fear that we are going to miss a large portion of the IATA summer peak that runs from June 1 to October 28.
As the grounding gets ever longer, the problems become more than just a simple case of getting the aircraft flying again.
If we take BA as possibly an indicator, I would say summer is written off for carriers who have not yet taken delivery of any Flatliners yet. Their conversion course for April, May and June have all been cancelled with no new dates provisionally assigned yet.
Thomson's use of Jetairfly 763s to help cover their 787 schedule is also until October.
For those reasons, I believe carriers have started resigning themselves to the fact they won't be flying their 787s before the northern winter 2013.
Would be delighted to be proved wrong though.
Rgds
So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9084 posts, RR: 37 Reply 3, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 32895 times:
Looks increasingly likely that further flight tests will start next week:-
"The federal approvals are expected late this week or early next week, even though some battery specialists remain concerned that investigators have not found the precise cause of two incidents in which the jetliner’s new lithium-ion batteries emitted smoke or fire."
777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11318 posts, RR: 17 Reply 4, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 32769 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
As the majority of the replys in the last thread were off tech/ops nature, please keep this thread for any news/updates on the progress for getting the Dreamliner back flying again. If you wish to discuss the battery issues/fire/APU etc then discuss them in B787 Grounding: Tech/ops Thread Part 2 which can be found here B787 Grounding: Tech/ops Thread Part 2 (by 777ER Mar 9 2013 in Tech Ops)
RickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 480 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 32604 times:
Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 2): If we take BA as possibly an indicator, I would say summer is written off for carriers who have not yet taken delivery of any Flatliners yet. Their conversion course for April, May and June have all been cancelled with no new dates provisionally assigned yet.
I don't think there is any reason to use derogatory terms.
BlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2515 posts, RR: 25 Reply 6, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 32512 times:
Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 5): I don't think there is any reason to use derogatory terms.
Funny, I heard far worse at a fleet planning discussion only last week, but each to their own. It was more a reflection of the situation than a derogatory term. If you want to get hung up about it, that's your prerogative.
Rgds
So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 32190 times:
Quoting BestWestern (Reply 1): When we look through the PR spin, do we have any idea when this aircraft will be back flying passengers.
Well since it is PR spin no one has any idea, since before the a/c can commence flying pax again test flights verifying the corrections to the battery issue have to be performed (whatever they are), the FAA has to be satisfied that the a/c is now safe, the review of the certification has to be concluded and deficience if any corrected.
Boeing has a "fix" that they have or are recommending to the FAA, they have a pretty good idea of how long it takes to implement through to production frames, but it is all dependent on the regulators who Boeing have lost control off, they can only sit and wait for approval, unfortunately / fortunately, they are still responsible for keeping their shareholders and current customers of the a/c updated on the progress of getting their frames, the grounding has not absolved them of that responsibility, so PR spin is the name of the game.
BestWestern From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6438 posts, RR: 58 Reply 8, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 32161 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 9): unfortunately / fortunately, they are still responsible for keeping their shareholders and current customers of the a/c updated on the progress of getting their frames,
But are they doing that? The spin does not seem grounded in reality - it is all fluff - they need to be more honest and give real updates - rather than the spin of we will be flying last week.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 9, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 32054 times:
Quoting BestWestern (Reply 10): But are they doing that? The spin does not seem grounded in reality - it is all fluff - they need to be more honest and give real updates - rather than the spin of we will be flying last week.
Maybe they just don't have any "real" updates to give until they get ZA005 back into the air and start testing?
The FAA seems to be giving the impression that while they are willing to allow Boeing to fly ZA005 to gather information and test their proposed solution, they intend to be very conservative in the testing and certification of that proposed solution and will not approve it until they are totally convinced it will protect the plane completely against a battery fire or leaking electrolyte. And that they have no intention of lifting the AD grounding the plane until then.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 32017 times:
Quoting BestWestern (Reply 10): But are they doing that? The spin does not seem grounded in reality - it is all fluff - they need to be more honest and give real updates - rather than the spin of we will be flying last week.
Boeing wants to do test flights, Boeing has shown its proposals to the FAA, folks on this site have bashed them before having the full details, the FAA has not responded as yet, so what exactly is Boeing supposed to say?
Imagine if Boeing came out and said that they are going to redesign the a/c, remove much of the electric components, go back to bleed air, used Nicad batteries and the a/c will commence test flying in 2014, is that reasonable and not PR spin?
If they were to do that it would be better to simply cancel the 8, get rid of all the orders, delay the 9 to incorporate all the changes and then give the 10 a go for offer, is this reasonable or also PR spin?
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1301 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 31980 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 12): Boeing wants to do test flights, Boeing has shown its proposals to the FAA, folks on this site have bashed them before having the full details
I frankly have not seen much Boeing bashing. Any attempt to state a position that the grounding is a justified precaution is seen as Boeing-bashing, and that is simply not a mature position to take.
Just as it is not a mature position to take that the grounding is unjustified because "nothing catastrophic happened" in the two battery fire episodes, as if only a catastrophic crash justifies a grounding.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 13, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 31623 times:
Quoting BestWestern (Reply 14): So, why the spin that has plagued this aircraft since the days of home depot fasteners.
Maybe because it works? The program is entering it's second decade as a basket-case and yet it still has a tremendous order-book and Boeing's stock is at a 52-week high.
In the world of bubble gum style news that loses its flavor in seconds, perhaps.
What a sad world we live in where rolling out a plane made with home depot fasteners for an auspicious date is deemed more important than getting it right.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2468 posts, RR: 21 Reply 15, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 31089 times:
what a bunch of rubbish.. Bash the PR Dept. for doing their job, bash the company for not being beholding to the A.net expurts, bash the FAA/NTSB for the same..
Again it is time to put up the keyboard and wait patiently for officially released news (not some reporters slant). This may take a week or so.
BestWestern From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6438 posts, RR: 58 Reply 16, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 31004 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 17): Again it is time to put up the keyboard and wait patiently for officially released news (not some reporters slant). This may take a week or so.
That, to be fair is what i am saying. I'm asking for Boeing to state facts. I don't care about the CEO wanting a vacation, or up there on the first flight spin.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 17, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 30753 times:
Quoting BestWestern (Reply 16): What a sad world we live in where rolling out a plane made with home depot fasteners for an auspicious date is deemed more important than getting it right.
As much stick as Boeing gets for the rollout, the fact is even if they'd cancelled it, it would not have materially impacted first flight. ZA001 would still have been a completely empty shell whether they did a "test fitting" or not . And while the use of improper fasteners did make the actual assembly more difficult then if they had not, Boeing was still so far behind in that assembly process that they had more than sufficient time to make the repairs while they waited for Alcoa to provide them with the necessary number of proper fasteners.
Which is all dependent on when the FAA approve their proposal and allows testing, we already know this and are waiting on the regulators, so those are the facts that count.
BestWestern From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6438 posts, RR: 58 Reply 19, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 30497 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 19): As much stick as Boeing gets for the rollout, the fact is even if they'd cancelled it, it would not have materially impacted first flight. ZA001 would still have been a completely empty shell whether they did a "test fitting" or not . And while the use of improper fasteners did make the actual assembly more difficult then if they had not, Boeing was still so far behind in that assembly process that they had more than sufficient time to make the repairs while they waited for Alcoa to provide them with the necessary number of proper fasteners.
Isn't hindsight a great thing - Boeing never said any of that at the time. The PR hyper spin machine kept-a-turning that week, with no delay announced at that time.
Quoting par13del (Reply 20): Which is all dependent on when the FAA approve their proposal and allows testing, we already know this and are waiting on the regulators, so those are the facts that count.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1301 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 30337 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 20): Quoting sankaps (Reply 13):
I frankly have not seen much Boeing bashing
Boeings proposal
Not agreeing with Boeing's proposal is not the same as Boeing-bashing, it is having a difference of opinion. And I am certain there are multiple opinions within Boeing too, it is required for a healthy debate and to avoid group-think. It is immature to equate"not agreeing with Boeing's proposal" with "Boeing bashing".
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2468 posts, RR: 21 Reply 21, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 30116 times:
You say you're waiting for official releases yet quote some blog as an authentic release when in fact it's just another outsider with a big ego's opinion.
There seems to be a belief that Boeing owes you information... it doesn't. We have developed a society that believes everything should be instant public knowledge.. and go so far as to quote opinions as facts to fill the void. As I said before time to set aside the keyboards and wait.. go do something useful..
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 23, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 30123 times:
Quoting BestWestern (Reply 24): It was someone else picking up on the spin machine in Boeing.
I'll grant Sandland's first link, but color me confused how unnamed social media and unnamed news media reports about ZA005 preparing to take to the skies with a new containment system is official Boeing spin.
lollomz From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 146 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 30085 times:
Well, at least we will have a summer full of good old B767s !!!
25 LJ: And HiFlys A340s flying to JFK and BKK..... Anyway some leasing companies of these 767s (or anything which was going to be replaced) will be grateful
26 RickNRoll: All large companies have professional 'communications' sections that decide exactly what is said and when. Rolls Royce after QF32 was completely non
27 solarflyer22: I think that's pretty much a given at this point. There are so many things that have to be done prior to peak summer travel. You have to test the sol
28 art: Not easy to run a business when there is insufficient certainty to schedule procedures necessary to introduce new equipment. I wonder how much this w
30 F9animal: I am hearing 6 months to a year before this bird gets close to flying again. I think it is time for some big wigs in Chicago to start packing up their
31 Wisdom: If the discussion is guided in the direction of the financials, I'll chip in another round. (by the way, interesting to know that the same APU logic i
32 KarelXWB: I'm pretty sure you can fly the 767 profitable. The airlines are currently losing more money with the 787 because they have to pay the lease rates, a
33 Stitch: Don't forget those airlines like QR, AI and the Chinese carriers losing money flying the A330 instead of their 787s. I'd like to think airlines are s
34 BlueShamu330s: I think a differentiation has to be made between those airlines purchasing the Dreamliner as an addition to their current fleet, as route expansion c
35 DocLightning: Are the airlines paying the leases at this point? With a grounding like this, as an airline CEO, I would make it clear to Boeing that they can either
36 kanban: All a/c delivered were sold not leased.
37 Stitch: I would imagine so, especially if it's a lease extension. It stands to reason Boeing is working to accommodate affected customers. Plus, an airliner
38 art: Is this the first time the certificate of airworthiness has been withdrawn for a Boeing jet aircraft (rather than a directive to undertake certain act
39 Stitch: To my knowledge, the 787's Type Certificate has not been withdrawn, at least by the FAA (as was done with the DC-10 in 1979). The grounding is being
40 DocLightning: It does, which is why it benefits Boeing to settle the matter without a lawsuit. No, but when it comes time for airlines to place their next order wi
41 phxa340: And go where ? There is only one other player in town and their track record, while better than Boeing, isn't too rosy when it comes to new recent mo
42 Stitch: And what, they're going to go to Airbus and say "yeah, we know you were late on the A380 and the A350, but hey, we're honked off at Boeing so if you
43 thorntot: While I could be mistaken, I swear I saw one of the 787s in Boeing house-colors departing/landing at IAD this afternoon just after 1400L. Appeared to
44 AeroWesty: And these payments to a third party you wouldn't authorize if you were an airline which purchased a now-grounded 787? Seems illogical.
45 ServantLeader: [quote=F9animal,reply=30] I am hearing 6 months to a year before this bird gets close to flying again. I think it is time for some big wigs in Chicago
46 cornutt: Some of the stuff I'm seeing written about this is getting really, really stupid. You must not have read some of the previous threads. I've said befor
47 BoeingVista: AFAIK the 787 type certificate has not been withdrawn, their was discussion in articles and thread 12 of whether that would have been the correct cou
48 maxter: ...and that would have to be one of the most extreme case of tinfoilism that I have read on these 13 parts of this way too long thread if you don't m
49 BestWestern: Its actually a three year high. Amazing the power these guy's don't have.
50 seahawk: I do not expect that the grounding will last a year or so, the FAA has other options to handle available. First step it to fix the containment (as I s
51 ZKOKQ: You cant be serious? Most of the 787 fate was in place before he even took over as CEO. What could McNerney done to fix this?
52 KarelXWB: Can an airline like LOT really pay $ 200 million per aircraft? I don't believe that, they must have lent the money by a financial institution. In tha
53 HAWK21M: There are def Four AI B787s parked at Old Airport at VABB.......Dust is accumulating over them fast.[Edited 2013-03-10 03:37:08]
54 oldeuropean: I wonder how they will look like, if they have to stand there for nearly a year.
55 LJ: The LOT 787s have been fiannced by Apple Bank, which has given another financial institution the right to issue securitsed bonds. This means that fro
57 kanban: I would think responsible posters would verify the status before trolling. Strangely how some people have a predetermined mindset of accountability w
58 hivue: It will be very interesting to see if the FAA (and other CAAs) will go for this (and what the NTSB might have to say about it). The original certific
59 Stitch: That can't happen until a root cause is determined by both the NTSB and the JTSB. And the length of time it may take to identify the root cause (or c
60 14ccKemiskt: A question here: How does the FAA "approval" in this case actually work? Boeing has proposed a fix, but will an FAA approval of the fix be the only fo
61 Stitch: Based on comments from the FAA, the proposed fix will have to be tested and certified prior to the lifting of the AD and the return of the 787 to rev
62 Viscount724: There was a recent news item where LOT was quoted saying that the 787 grounding was costing them about $50,000 a day.
63 hivue: Very true -- which makes me pessimistic that the 787 will be flying again anytime soon.
64 PanAmPaul: It is hard to believe we are about to cross the two-month mark at this point. It seems just yesterday we were learning about the fire and the emergenc
65 sankaps: Apologies if this has been posted before (I did not see it), but an interesting write-up on BCA head Ray Conner here at http://www.bizjournals.com/sea
66 PITingres: Keep in mind that from the FAA's standpoint, there need not be any requirement that the batteries not fail per se. The only overall requirement is th
67 mcdu: How do would you be able to defend the timeline, responsibilities and organizational structure? The 787 is a failure in every aspect so far. Attempti
68 BoeingVista: The FAA cannot accept this without ignoring its special requirements for Li-ion batteries on the 787 which were of course the terms that the 787 was
69 14ccKemiskt: I did some math on the presumed (certified) failure rate of the Li-Ion batteries, stating that a smoke event should occur in less than once in every 1
70 phxa340: And yet ZERO airlines have cancelled any orders due to all these "Failures". I don't think you would find a single rational person that claims the 78
71 Wisdom: It's too early to tell. First the airlines will wait several months to give Boeing a chance to resolve this matter. Then the other issues will be wor
72 phxa340: I don't think its a matter of time - what else are the airlines going to order? The A350 is sold out for years and will more than likely also have te
73 slcdeltarumd11: He did say SO FAR and hes kind of accurate. It has been a failure so far. Long term is a different story but up to the present its been disappointing
74 PITingres: The FAA is free to modify those conditions if they believe that doing so would produce equivalent or better flight safety because of altered circumst
75 hivue: They probably hoped it wouldn't, but Boeing developed the safety standards and the FAA passed them and they both have plenty of folks who can do thes
76 cornutt: I've seen the statement made a number of times that the special conditions state that battery fires cannot occur. However, I've just done a re-read o
77 RickNRoll: If I read the information so far correctly, the problem is that the failure frequency, and the way it played out, had not been predicted. Risk has to
78 BoeingVista: Sure they can but they are not going to, and if they did EASA and JAA would be free to say no, we accepted your original certification rules and we w
79 rheinwaldner: Well, the difference between "in theory" and "reality" is already considered when a lot of people say that "the 787 should not fly again until the ro
80 DocLightning: I would demand that the manufacturer pay them. You sold me a bum plane. You pay the lease until it flies again. The A380 was very poorly done. And ye
81 seahawk: As I said, even with a new containment design, Boeing won´t be off the hook. But the containment might be enough to let the 787 fly again, although
82 mcdu: Airlines don't really have a viable plan b at this time. They have pinned their plans around promises from Boeing and waited out innumerable delays t
83 CALTECH: Before making outlandish claims like this, go and read up on the De Haviland Comet's developement. Much worse.
84 Stitch: In the benchmark area, it's been a success in terms of economics per NH and JL.
85 sankaps: Indeed the Comet was on the bleeding edge of pushing new technology in being the world's first commercial jetliner, and paid the price for not knowin
86 hivue: This likely would apply even if any underestimate of risk was unintentional. Events appear to have revealed that Boeing's functional hazard assessmen
87 mcdu: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ost-15m-in-january-revenue-381692/ Sounds like it may not be as financially beneficial as you would imply. This
88 art: No, I don't think it will go the way of the Comet. It took several years to redesign the Comet and by the time the Comet 4 received its certification
89 CALTECH: Except there was some misgivings. http://www.century-of-flight.net/Avi...f%20age/De%20Havilland%20Comet.htm "The square design of the windows was the
90 mcdu: It would be interesting if the A350 was able to be the 707 to the 787/comet. The comet lost the confidence of the traving publis also. The 787 may ve
91 jbcarioca: While I have little doubt taht the 787 will be a serious challenge for Boeing to get right, I'm confident they will do so. I've no guess about when. I
92 PITingres: Well, maybe, but personally I doubt it. The difference between the 787 and the Comet / DC10 / ATR72-2 is that the 787 hasn't killed anyone, and I thi
93 sankaps: One does not know how long the 787s problems will take to fix, and whether there will be other problems relating to new "bleeding edge" technology el
94 PacNWjet: Does the average member of the flying public remember the mid-air engine explosion on a Qantas A380 that cast doubt on that aircraft for a short whil
95 AeroWesty: As do I, but the ball is really in Boeing's court. They've got one shot to make this right. After AA191 I always felt a bit uneasy flying the DC-10.
96 Stitch: What doomed the Comet 4 was that the 707 and DC-8 were larger, faster, had better range and better operating economics. They were overall better plane
97 14ccKemiskt: This is certainly true. But if there are any more events after the fixes has been implemented, that will refresh their memories very quickly. The fix
98 art: The Comet and DC-10 were grounded after total loss crashes. No Dreamliners have been lost so I can't see why the public should be frightened of flyin
99 kanban: Wrong.. the presses eyes are on the 787 as it sells papers. Most reports today are in the business papers and have dropped from the "30 second sound
100 Stitch: The A320 suffered a fatal accident within a few months of entering revenue service. It then went on to have three more fatal accidents within five ye
101 Kaiarahi: Huh??? They're about the same size as a car battery. This kind of hyperbole is why many knowledgeable posters have abandoned these threads.
102 sankaps: Agreed, sorry was just making a point about its size relative to Li-Ion batteries used thus far on other commercial aircraft for any purpose.
103 sankaps: That was a generation ago. Safety expectations have changed dramatically since then. I doubt the A320 would have gotten away, regardless of root caus
104 14ccKemiskt: In the A320 case, all crashes were due to pilot error. In the 737 case, well, a third crash would have grounded the fleet. And there was a significan
105 CALTECH: It will not be a 'one shot' deal. Besides the Boeing deniers, it seems that there are a whole lot of 'the sky is falling' posters. This thing is goin
106 BlueShamu330s: Yet just four days ago on all the UK news channels and flashing across the breaking news ticker, the news is broadcast nationally that "Thomson cance
107 hivue: My prediction is that in the case of smoke/fire events such as those seen on JAL and ANA the FAA is going to be requiring landing at nearest suitable
108 kanban: And who would have listened if they had said "Thomson delays 787 scheduling until a plane is delivered"... I recently read a story on some new lighte
109 BlueShamu330s: Sensationalism, quite so; but factually incorrect...? Rgds
110 UALWN: This is nothing compared with the issues experienced by the 727: four fatal accidents in a 6 month period between August 1965 and February 1966. Two
111 Stitch: And yet at the time there was a public perception it was the FBW system that caused the accidents. Heck, even to this day we have people posting on t
112 AeroWesty: Where did you see this? The only news I've read is that a Boeing executive is "confident" in having a permanent fix, as told to an industry conferenc
113 BlueShamu330s: It's time to bow out of all threads Dreamliner. Editing and deletions are skewing the discussion out of all true context. US based forum, discussing a
114 Kaiarahi: A little perspective is in order. - The 787 has hundreds of thousands of components and systems, the vast majority of them working perfectly well, al
115 sankaps: Fully agree, but it cuts both ways: "Experts" on a.net calling into question the judgment of the experts and professionals at the FAA, NTSB, and airl
116 14ccKemiskt: Best summary in at least 5 threads. Seems like a very plausible scenario indeed!
117 cornutt: And I don't necessarily disagree with the FAA action; I understand their thinking and I agree that their position is supportable. However, they have
118 cornutt: You're definitely not the first person to say that. The 787 program has been a strain on the company to an extent not seen since the original 747. Du
119 seahawk: Without a doubt Boeing will need to re-certify much of the design, after the final fix has been found, but that does not rule out the option for the
120 sankaps: I am continually puzzled as to why our a.net experts do not want their (or Boeing's) views on Li-Ion batteries on the 787 to be questioned as they ar
121 KarelXWB: ISTAT update: the FAA has approved Boeing's plan to fix the 787. Starts with flight testing.[Edited 2013-03-12 13:37:39]
122 AeroWesty: Great news! FAA approves Boeing’s program to tackle 787 problems [Edited 2013-03-12 13:48:34]
123 PHX787: Just broke the news on Fox. So when are we gonna see her flying again?
124 Stitch: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has some info, including the FAA Press Release. Probably not anytime soon. The FAA has approved limited test flights fo
125 sankaps: What the FAA has approved is a test plan and test flights for the proposed fix, and not the planned fix itself as yet. Hopefully the testing goes well
126 KarelXWB: ZA006 is in change incorporation and ZA004 is missing its engines, but that last one should not be a problem./
127 Kaiarahi: That's not what they said. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today approved the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company’s certification plan for
128 sankaps: "The Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday approved Boeing’s plan to test its proposals to fix the battery problems that have grounded its 787
129 KarelXWB: Found it: Boeing says it will use ZA005 and LN86 for FAA flight tests. LN86 = SP-LRC for LOT.
130 PHX787: I knew as much, I was just hoping to get a potential timeframe.
131 Kaiarahi: The FAA statement (not a newspaper version of it) clearly states that they approved the "certification plan". Testing is an essential element of the
132 AeroWesty: I'm not sure why we're getting hung up on semantics again. What happened: 1) The FAA reviewed Boeing's proposed modifications; and 2) The FAA reviewed
133 B777LRF: It would be absurd if the FAA was to agree to a plan that demonstrates the validity of a fix, if they didn't believe in the fix itself. Thus we can as
134 PHX787: Exactly. Let's see where all this goes, and hopefully things work out. That plane for LO that is going to be used for testing is probably going to be
135 PanAmPaul: Not sure if this was posted... Boeing Gets FAA Approval for Certification Plan for Dreamliner Battery Solution "Boeing announced that it has received
136 AeroWesty: What problems do you have with what Boeing is proposing? It's confusing enough as it is where to post what without offending people.
137 cornutt: I'm not a battery expert, but I do know a thing or two about certification standards. The cert standards are oriented around establishing a probabili
138 Dan23: An excerpt from the Boeing Press Release: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2619 It appears that only LN86 will be taking part in th
139 Aesma: To be honest I don't understand why Boeing can't fly as many test flights as they want with as many planes as they want, using usual precautions like
140 RickNRoll: I thought it had been established that fire had escaped the containment (so did flammable electrolyte). The fire and heat had scorched a second, smal
141 B777LRF: Well, when you've discovered something burning that shouldn't, but don't know what caused it, my conservative approach would be to identify the root
142 oldeuropean: Yep, they definitely risk that a plane will fall from the sky, before they bother to really change the faulty design. Unbelievable! [Edited 2013-03-1
143 BlueShamu330s: So, to precis in absolute layman's speak: Boeing: To minimise any further risk due to fire, smoke or thermal runaway, we're redesigning the batteries,
144 francoflier: I tend to agree with you, but I doubt they've given up on making the battery safe. On the contrary. The problem is that the exact chain of events whi
145 14ccKemiskt: The delivered 50 planes, do they have to be rebuilt in Seattle or can they be fixed where they are?
146 ltbewr: With this announcement on the 787 battery system, another process begins that will take a considerable amount of time. It is the best hope that this r
147 art: Will Boeing be testing prototypes of the new battery or will they be testing batteries coming off the production line making batteries to the new desi
148 NAV20: As far as I can work it out, art, they'll be testing 'modified' batteries - but the modifications are modest, and on the face of it very sensible - m
149 sankaps: I fully agree, Their approach is to make enough changes to as to hopefully hit and "smother" the hidden root cause, wherever it may lie. A variant of
150 francoflier: They very likely are. The problem is that there probably isn't enough data available to them to work on that. Restarting operations would help. It be
151 ServantLeader: Since the fix is a containment and venting of a battery failure event wouldn't it follow that uneventful test flights are of little use? And if so wou
152 Stitch: Boeing cannot be as cavalier about this as some folks are accusing them of. Even if Boeing's solution completely removes safety as an issue, it does n
153 hivue: Boeing has proposed new battery certification criteria to the FAA and the FAA has accepted those criteria. Boeing now will flight test the modified b
154 phxa340: Commercial flights to start back up in 3-4 weeks according to yahoo. Http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...ng-investors-can-look-skyward.aspx
155 Aesma: They could put a machine emitting a liquid similar to what happened during the incidents, but benign, instead of the battery, along with a smoke gener
156 hivue: Yes, it would be interesting to know the details of the new cerification plan and how it differs from the original battery cerification criteria. The
157 NAV20: Super 'find,' phxa340, thanks. I'd put it at more like six weeks, given that the Europe lot will 'mobilise' whole divisions of lawyers. But, unless t
158 art: I don't see how it can be done so quickly unless batteries of the revised design are already being manufactured / will be manufactured before testing
159 seahawk: Compared to the costs of the grounding, having to throw away a few containment boxes (in the worst case) hardly matters. It will be good to see the 78
160 Kaiarahi: According to the FAA press release: The battery system improvements include a redesign of the internal battery components to minimize initiation of a
161 BEG2IAH: Now that we have some actual news, why did this thread become so quiet?
162 TheRedBaron: Sit and wait.... for the smoke..or not ( and I am not talking about the vatican tough) on a serious tone. I think that after all this grounding and i
163 ServantLeader: FAA approval of Boeing's proposed fix was widely anticipated and therefore wasn't really new news, and is only a baby step to resuming revenue servic
164 CaptainKramer: Quoting seahawk reply 159. Regardless of whether flights are restricted or not, I'm sure every Captain and Co-pilot of a B787 will keenly study the al
165 KELPkid: Or, just intentionally short circuit a cell in a ground mockup of the E&E bay That should show worst-case performance (i.e. no pressure different
166 PW100: While I share some of your scepticism, I'd like to think that Boeing has already started many of the actions proposed to the FAA. In fact some of the
167 Shenzhen: My understanding is that testing (cert requirements) have already begun, and should be complete next week. Once the testing is complete, Boeing servic
168 par13del: In addition, has it been released what Boeing actually did / tested on the test flights that were conducted a couple weeks ago?
169 XT6Wagon: Think it would be easier to just use one of the frames they wrote off if they are worried. Just light off a battery in each end of #3 and call it goo
170 kanban: I'll take an educated guess that the purpose of the test flights was a monitoring of depletion and recharge voltages ..looking for stray output and i
171 blrsea: Boing now says no fire possible with new changes. Has more details on the design changes. Boeing: ‘no fire is possible’ with 787 battery fix
172 francoflier: Anybody has a clue of how the 'overboard exhaust system' will work? There will be a new hole in the fuselage somewhere, but will it be permanently ope
173 KarelXWB: Boeing's Sinnett says no ETOPS limitations when 787 fleet comes back after the grounding is lifted. http://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/312390118096
174 BlueShamu330s: Randy kindly explains quite thoroughly the "multiple layers of improvements": http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/arc...aring_our_solution_1.html#comment
175 NAV20: Thanks for the link, BlueShamu330s. Most interesting, and on the face of it 'convincing.' There's one paragraph that struck me as particularly relevan
176 hivue: I think previous posts actually implied that it also is necessary for braking in the rare instance when engine and APU sources of electrical power ar
177 Stitch: Deep-discharging a Li-Ion battery can evidently increase the chances of a thermal runway, so Boeing likely places a limit on how far you can discharg
178 PlanesNTrains: Hearing such an absolute statement does anything but make me feel better. To me, it only makes a potential future incident all the more damning. -Dav
179 Stitch: Considering the requirement is that for every flight hour there is a one-in-a-billion chance of a fire, that pretty much means you can't have a fire
180 sankaps: I agree. Much better to state the the chances are extremely remote. Speaking in absolutes is not a good habit, I never do that!
181 Revelation: Hmmm... Agreed. We read in: that: And: So it seems the approach is one of belt and suspenders. Even with this additional description I still don't se
182 Stitch: Li-Ion batteries do not generate their own oxygen, especially when under thermal runaway. Independent testing have identified that no significant amou
184 PlanesNTrains: Oh, I understand. It just makes me apprehensive when it comes to this program. Not because I believe they are lying, but because it just creates more
185 sankaps: Well, statisticaly that is about one battery fire every 10 years in the world's total pax aircraft fleet (using some back-of-envelope calculations).
186 bikerthai: I understood, but probably can't explain it well enough for every one. If you haven't already done so, check out the video and slides from the presen
187 bikerthai: So from a philosophical stand point (for all those who did not watch the video all the way to the end), what Boeing has done is use the standard proce
188 mjoelnir: When you read this statement it is typical as many of the half truth statements are formulated in this battery PR spin. Why should we find free oxyge
189 sankaps: In all seriousness though, we should wait for the comprehensive tests of the proposed fixes to conclude first before we start the "told you so" commen
190 lightsaber: As much as that is in marketing speak, it has enough information for those of us who know risk to understand roughly the risk buydown. Lightsaber
191 AeroWesty: For perspective for those who read this thread ten years from now, Boeing stock closed Friday at $86.43, up $1.81 in an otherwise down market overall
192 dfambro: Question about ETOPS impact. If the new containment basically prevents any battery problem from having catastophic consequences, then why would any ET
193 Stitch: If the APU battery is inoperative, the 787 is limited to ETOPS-180. Also, it appears the APU battery is required to operate the APU - even if the APU
194 BlueShamu330s: Hold on, didn't Mr Smisek reassure the world that ETOPS would not be affected ??? Rgds
195 Stitch: As I believe the current ETOPS limit for the 787-8 is ETOPS-180, it would indeed not be affected. (The FAA and EASA Type Certificates show it as ETOP
196 NAV20: Boeing are now saying that testing will be completed within two weeks - apparently most of it is being done on the ground, they only envisage one actu
197 KarelXWB: From the LOT Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/PllLOT[Edited 2013-03-18 03:37:01]
198 bikerthai: For those not familiar with the testing involved. The flight testing is the last step in the whole certification process other than the paperwork. Th
199 RickNRoll: I have to question that. There was plenty of bench testing, but it didn't show up the root cause. It was actual commercial flight conditions that see
200 NAV20: Have to comment about that issue, RickNRoll. There were two separate events, arguably resulting from different causes. Boeing flew two test flights w
201 bikerthai: Why all this heart burn about root cause? There have been precedence. Although there was strong theory of what happened to both TWA 800 and AF477, di
202 migair54: How many B787 are right now ready to deliver? for who?? i´m sure they are going to start delivering them as fast as possible as soon as the ban is li
203 sankaps: I believe they did for TWA 800 (old aircraft, hot and empty center fuel tank full of fuel vapors, a stray spark from some worn wiring lit the vapors)
204 hivue: I agree that there has been too much emphasis on "root cause," as if identifying that will work some magic that solves the whole problem. In the case
205 NAV20: Honestly don't see more than the slightest connection between those 'accidents' and a couple of (much less significant) 787 'incidents'?
206 Revelation: NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman seems to be skeptical enough of such 'regulators': Ref: http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130207.html These are aircra
207 hivue: So what is the magic number? Two? Or maybe ten or twenty? Why should Boeing do more than one if there's nothing more they can learn? More photo ops f
208 mjoelnir: Satisfying the regulators being not only the FAA but also the others as there are the EASA, JCAB, DGCA and so on. If they say jump you ask how high.
209 sankaps: That was the triggering event, but not the root cause of why the aircraft went into a deep stall and was unable to pull out of it. The causes behind
210 NAV20: I don't suppose many of us would deny that said lady, on available evidence, is a bit of a creep? I've admired Boeing for years - not because they're
211 Sassiciai: The recent main 787 incidents have happened in real-life airline service, not in Boeing flight tests (although, the first "fire" was during a flight t
212 Stitch: If they did, one would expect Boeing would accommodate them. Flight testing can have too many uncontrolled variables to serve as an effective testing
213 Sassiciai: We are talking about major international aircraft manufacturing companies. You make it sound like two horses riding around some field with obstacles
214 Kaiarahi: Then you'd better stay away from 777s as well - same "issue".
215 Sassiciai: The long earlier threads did touch on the fact that real airline flights are not the same as test flights! There are real humans on board in greater
216 frmrcapcadet: The 'root cause' could well be a battery, assembley, case and etc. that was not rugged enough. In which case the announced fix is to make it more rugg
217 justloveplanes: Well, ya know, they may just induce a battery thermal event in flight to test the ventilation and containment. If that worst case works convincingly,
218 Stitch: Boeing did perform test and certification flights on I believe ZA003 with a cabin outfitted and "passengers" (Boeing employees) aboard to test those
219 francoflier: Probably not just economics. You can bet your hat that news reporters the world over are going to be flying circles above those batteries waiting for
220 Sassiciai: Thanks for the additional info - I thought that batteries were there to START things, or to take over in dire straits when almost all else fails! But
221 sankaps: This has been discusseed before and moved to the TechOps thread. Yes, the APU requires the APU battery to operate in the 777, like the 787. But from
222 Sassiciai: Just like the ANA flight, in fact, where the ovens, lavatories, IFE and such are not powered by the batteries. But the batteries on the ANA flight be
223 Stitch: And the Ship's Battery battery on all the flights that JA804A undertook from October 2012 operated differently then it did on that flight from Yamagu
224 Sassiciai: From a purely logical perspective, I'm inclined to agree with you. Greater minds than mine have struggled with 787 battery this issue, with access to
225 Revelation: I don't know how such a comment (if true or not) really adds to the discussion. I think she's doing her job, which is to ask the exact questions she'
226 hivue: I they say "jump" for no reason I suspect Boeing would actually ask "why?" That's a semantic distinction -- which is essentially my point. "Root caus
227 Stitch: Sage advice. That could be and therefore Boeing has taken steps now to eliminate it as a possible contributing factor rather than be forced to do so
228 bellancacf: Could someone tell me how these 2 things function in each other's presence? 1) Drain holes in the battery box to let out any condensed moisture. 2) A
229 ServantLeader: Like any term, "root cause" is vague until you put it into a specific context. In this case Boeing and company have been unable to pinpoint what caus
230 fcogafa: Exciting development this afternoon, the QTR 787 at Heathrow was towed into the cathedral hangar!
231 lightsaber: Yes, Boeing would present their analysis and ask the NTSB for detailed information as to why it doesn't satisfy the requirement. Regulators always as
232 sankaps: I agree. I think people are looking for the "real" cause, and that is known for TWA800 and AF447, but not for the 787 battery events.
233 bikerthai: Yes, but the regulators have a set of rules that enable everyone to be on the same level playing field. If the regulator ask you to jump, it come wit
234 Kaiarahi: The FAA is the regulator who signs off, not the NTSB.
235 Stitch: The drain holes are in the battery box, which is located inside the steel container. So it sounds like moisture drains out of the battery box and col
236 bellancacf: Thanks. Kinda like cleaning out the bottom of a birdcage ...
237 Revelation: So they may have different root causes (or not)...
238 twiga: I fully agree with you. All this discussion about root cause before you do anything does'nt make any sense. As it has been said before they may never
239 seahawk: An APU fire can be shut of by stopping the fuel supply and the fire extinguishers are effective. A Li-Ion battery melt down event, continues without e
240 Ruscoe: [quote=seahawk,reply=239]A Li-Ion battery melt down event, continues without external supply of flammable liquids, can not be extinguished by on-board
241 rwessel: But there's only a limited amount of possible energy release. Once the battery consumes itself, it's done.
242 mjoelnir: Good work of the spin doctors. No fire, pure semantics. Lets all call fire a oxidizing action and bingo we have no fire. Lithium/ion batteries do not
243 par13del: Is semantics details, and who is supposed to actually deal with the details? If a root cause is to be identified those doing the investigation have t
244 RickNRoll: I don't know about that. We are repeatedly told there was no fire.
245 mjoelnir: I reacted to the statement: The above statement runs contraire to what both the NTSB and the Boston fire brigade are stating. The other statement was
246 justloveplanes: I think it's more of a design issue at this point. Enough is known to create a sufficiently reliable system in that the instability of large LiIon ce
247 kanban: I may be lone believer in this, however I think we have applied conditions in one situation to a broader application without justification. Meaning--
248 mjoelnir: There was a power source, the APU !!
249 bikerthai: Yep, at altitude when the containment box vent, it will then see the same pressure differential pressure as the airplane fuselage. From the press con
250 kanban: then it wouldn't be redundant separate source and losing the battery would not have shut down the APU.
251 blrsea: Is the connection part within the container or outside of the container? In the video, he mentions that there were small flames.
252 XT6Wagon: Its the part that connects the battery to the rest of the plane for everything but the main power connection. It looks like it was plastic and reache
253 hivue: As has been mentioned several times, it seems that, by design, the APU battery is the sole source of power for the APU controller under any condition
254 mjoelnir: Could you explain that again? I have auxiliary power unit to produce electricity, it produces, I think, about 2 x 450 kW electricity, that would be t
255 Kaiarahi: Which is curious. Why have multiple redundant ways of starting the APU if you can't run it without the battery, which is also capable of starting it.
256 planesmart: My knowledge of commercial aircraft is limited to working in proximity with those who do know a lot, and having a PPL. I probably know more about cars
257 twiga: I agree with you that the battery design is controlled by the supplier/subcontractor, which likely included the origional blue battery box since its
259 NAV20: Looks like Boeing will be flying a couple of test flights any day now:- "(Reuters) - Boeing Co plans to conduct two flight tests of its revamped 787 b
260 bikerthai: You are probably right. It depends on the installation sequence whether the box would be Boeing's or the supplier's responsibility (both design and m
261 hivue: That's a good question and I certainly do not have the answer. However, it isn't hard to come up with some possibilities. Maybe Boeing looked at the
262 blrsea: Apparently, NTSB is not happy with the comments made by the Boeing executives in Japan when they described the proposed fixes, and also the events tha
263 hivue: I remember her saying this. There have been fires on aircraft for as long as there have been aircraft. There will be fires in the future. If you "do
264 ServantLeader: Your logic is baffling -- Hersman's comment regarding fires on board aircraft is absolutely appropriate, especially given that she is speaking for a
265 Kaiarahi: NTSB is not a regulatory body. That's the FAA's job.
266 hivue: My logic is that if you do not expect bad stuff to happen eventually then you will not be prepared for it when it does. As Kaiarahi points out, Hersm
267 ServantLeader: I stand corrected, NTSB's charter is to investigate accidents and provide corrective action recommendations to other agencies that are responsible for
268 sankaps: A detailed write-up on the NTSB scolding here as well: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/invest...old-boeing-over-787-133141710.html Boeing would be right
269 bikerthai: This sounds like a typical Engineer vs. Lawyer's dust up. The Engineer just wants to get things done and the lawyer wants to make sure all the i's ar
270 mjoelnir: I think that the "nothing dangerous happened" Boeing attitude is actually lawyer inspired. If you agree that something bad has happened you leave you
271 SKY1: But the "small" problem with that statement is Boeing is not doing the right things, Boeing is dangerously exhausted the customer airlines' patience.
272 twiga: I think you will hear about this argument sooner than later. You are right it's a lame argument for the battery issues because you can't engineer for
273 RickNRoll: If they get enough flying hours up, the root cause may yet make it's appearance.
274 sweair: It took a lot of flight hours to have this show up, close to three years of flying.. This is very strange for sure, if the cells were bad from the st
275 14ccKemiskt: Yes, most probably actually. If the cells fail at the same rate as they have been doing then during 2013 alone, another 15 cells will fail. During 20
276 PITingres: Of course, if they fail at the rate that they did in 2012, there will be no more failures. I don't recall hearing anything about additional data coll
277 LipeGIG: As this becomes too long , we are opening Part 14 for discussions. Please see the link below FAA Grounds B787: Part 14 (by LipeGIG Mar 23 2013 in Civi
Sponsor Message: 
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11318 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6438 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2515 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9084 posts, 
From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 480 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, 
From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 146 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
