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, 6439 posts, RR: 58 Reply 1, posted (2 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 33208 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 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 33120 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, 9086 posts, RR: 37 Reply 3, posted (2 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 32897 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 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 32771 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, 481 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 32606 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 2 days ago) and read 32514 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, 5902 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 32192 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, 6439 posts, RR: 58 Reply 8, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 32163 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, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 9, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 32056 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, 5902 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 32019 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, 1306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 31982 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, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 13, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 31625 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 19 hours ago) and read 31091 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, 6439 posts, RR: 58 Reply 16, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 31006 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, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 17, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 30755 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, 6439 posts, RR: 58 Reply 19, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 30499 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, 1306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 30339 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 18 hours ago) and read 30118 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, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 23, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 30125 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.
LJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4149 posts, RR: 1 Reply 25, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 29891 times:
Quoting lollomz (Reply 26): Well, at least we will have a summer full of good old B767s !!!
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 gratefull to Boeing that they can make some additional cash for an airplane which will probably be difficult to place in the current market.
All large companies have professional 'communications' sections that decide exactly what is said and when. Rolls Royce after QF32 was completely non responsive after it's engine blew up.
solarflyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 395 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 29413 times:
Quoting BestWestern (Reply 1): 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.
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 solution, train staff, modifiy existing frames, re-design schedules potentially. Its a lot of work.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 29324 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.
Not easy to run a business when there is insufficient certainty to schedule procedures necessary to introduce new equipment. I wonder how much this will cost the airlines. I imagine that when the problems leading to the aircraft's grounding are solved and airlines have quantified the cost of rescheduling disruption, the bill will be large.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 19): 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.
Installing fasteners knowing that they will have to be removed then replaced = 3 processes instead of 1. This was done in aid of what? To create the illusion that the project was more advanced than was the case (ie than was true). If the PR gurus in all their wisdom thought this was a great idea, so be it. In fact this pantomime rollout attempt to conceal project delay delayed it somewhat more.
F9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4739 posts, RR: 30 Reply 30, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 29222 times:
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 offices, and make way for an executive team that can bring a fresh breath of air to this company. Starting with McNerney.
Wisdom From Netherlands, joined Apr 2011, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 29112 times:
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 is on the 777, very weird).
The dream lives on.... but when is the B787 going to become reality?
At this rate, the A350XWB will be hauling passengers before the B787.
Airlines are currently burning a lot of the money that this aircraft was supposed to save them.
Each day that a B767 is flying instead of a B787, it is making airlines lose money (although I'm of the opinion that this is less true than the Boeing marketing wants us to believe).
At what point will airlines be fed up? Is the B787 worth all the trouble the airlines have to go through?
From an airline's stand point, an aircraft fleet grounded after delivery is a true nightmare:
-They have to pay monthly leasing costs for the delivered B787's, regardless of the grounding.
-A lot of the maintenance intervals keep running, regardless of the storage.
-Parking fees, insurance, crew salaries, crew training costs, engineering resources, yearly reg fees, keep stacking up while there are no revenues to compensate for them.
-They have to ACMI or dry lease short term lift and extend it every so many months at a huge cost, making profitable operations impossible on such routes where they're deployed.
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 1804 posts, RR: 6 Reply 32, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 29067 times:
Quoting Wisdom (Reply 33): Each day that a B767 is flying instead of a B787, it is making airlines lose money (although I'm of the opinion that this is less true than the Boeing marketing wants us to believe).
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, and the birds - being on the ground - are not generating any revenue.
Quoting Wisdom (Reply 31): Is the B787 worth all the trouble the airlines have to go through?
That's the risk of being an early adopter and I'm pretty sure airlines know this.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 33, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 29016 times:
Quoting Wisdom (Reply 31): Each day that a B767 is flying instead of a B787, it is making airlines lose money...
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 smart enough that if they have a route that consistently lost money for years with a 767, 777, A330 or A340, they'd have suspended / up-gauaged / down-gauged it rather then keep racking up losses while they waited even more years for 787s or A350s.
BlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2515 posts, RR: 25 Reply 34, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 28796 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 33): Don't forget those airlines like QR, AI and the Chinese carriers losing money flying the A330 instead of their 787s.
I think a differentiation has to be made between those airlines purchasing the Dreamliner as an addition to their current fleet, as route expansion can more affordably put on hold, and those, like TOM and LOT for example, whose Dreamliners were replacing ageing B767s coming to the end of lease arrangements or their legislated life.
In both cases, the Dreamliner is causing significant pain.
Rgds
So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 35, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 28092 times:
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 32): 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, and the birds - being on the ground - are not generating any revenue.
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 start paying the lease while the fleet is grounded or they can settle it in court AND cheese off their customers at the same time.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 37, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 28011 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35): Are the airlines paying the leases at this point?
I would imagine so, especially if it's a lease extension.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35): With a grounding like this, as an airline CEO, I would make it clear to Boeing that they can either start paying the lease while the fleet is grounded or they can settle it in court AND cheese off their customers at the same time.
It stands to reason Boeing is working to accommodate affected customers. Plus, an airliner is not a car so it's not like airlines can head over to TLS and pick up a new or used A330 off the lot. Not to mention a lawsuit costs times and money in and of itself.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 38, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 27949 times:
Is this the first time the certificate of airworthiness has been withdrawn for a Boeing jet aircraft (rather than a directive to undertake certain actions before flight is permitted again)?
When a type's certificate of airworthiness is withdrawn, is the manufacturer generally held liable for all losses stemming from the grounding?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 39, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 28011 times:
Quoting art (Reply 38): Is this the first time the certificate of airworthiness has been withdrawn for a Boeing jet aircraft (rather than a directive to undertake certain actions before flight is permitted again)?
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 administered via Emergency Airworthiness Directives.
Quoting art (Reply 38): When a type's certificate of airworthiness is withdrawn, is the manufacturer generally held liable for all losses stemming from the grounding?
I would guess so, though it will probably be the insurance companies that pay (who will recover the costs by raising everyone's rates).
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 40, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 27904 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 37): It stands to reason Boeing is working to accommodate affected customers. Plus, an airliner is not a car so it's not like airlines can head over to TLS and pick up a new or used A330 off the lot. Not to mention a lawsuit costs times and money in and of itself.
It does, which is why it benefits Boeing to settle the matter without a lawsuit.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 37): It stands to reason Boeing is working to accommodate affected customers. Plus, an airliner is not a car so it's not like airlines can head over to TLS and pick up a new or used A330 off the lot.
No, but when it comes time for airlines to place their next order with Boeing, the more Boeing has cheesed off their customers, the more stringent the offers from the airlines will be. They will insist on very punitive measures in their order contracts for delays and groundings and if Boeing won't play, they won't get orders.
Quoting kanban (Reply 36): All a/c delivered were sold not leased.
Were they fully owned by the airlines? In most cases, the airline may or may not directly purchase the aircraft, but if they do they typically immediately sell it to a leasing company and lease it back.
phxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 624 posts, RR: 1 Reply 41, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 27904 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 40): They will insist on very punitive measures in their order contracts for delays and groundings and if Boeing won't play, they won't get orders.
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 models. As an airline you can't be too pissed off at both manufactures or you will run out of options quickly.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 42, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 27953 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 40): No, but when it comes time for airlines to place their next order with Boeing, the more Boeing has cheesed off their customers, the more stringent the offers from the airlines will be. They will insist on very punitive measures in their order contracts for delays and groundings and if Boeing won't play, they won't get orders.
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 run late with our order, well, we won't ask for anything more and will quietly just wait our turn. Oh, and since we won't order Boeing, whatever you're willing to knock off list price is fine by us - assuming you want to knock anything off list price, of course."
Uh-huh...
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 40): Were they fully owned by the airlines? In most cases, the airline may or may not directly purchase the aircraft, but if they do they typically immediately sell it to a leasing company and lease it back.
To my knowledge all of the 787s are currently directly owned. AI does have at least two planes with bridge financing provided by a finance company, but they do not own the planes. AI is also seeking to sell and lease-back their fleet, however to date they have not signed such a deal.
thorntot From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 37 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 27857 times:
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 be the livery worn by N787ZA or perhaps it was wearing the LOT tail with forward fuselage titles removed and an all white scheme forward of the wings.
For those who know the area, I was at Reston Town Center and it flew directly overhead, low and slow, headed North-northeast.
I could find nothing on flightaware or flightradar24. Is this possible? Are they making test flights?
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18871 posts, RR: 64 Reply 44, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 27830 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 40): Were they fully owned by the airlines? In most cases, the airline may or may not directly purchase the aircraft, but if they do they typically immediately sell it to a leasing company and lease it back.
And these payments to a third party you wouldn't authorize if you were an airline which purchased a now-grounded 787? Seems illogical.
ServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 62 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 27724 times:
[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 to start packing up their offices, and make way for an executive team that can bring a fresh breath of air to this company. Starting with McNerney.
Strangely enough very few people understand / purposely choose to ignore the fact that the bulk of the 787 problems are self induced by an overmatched CEO and/or dysfunctional corporate governance system.
cornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 215 posts, RR: 1 Reply 46, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 27660 times:
Some of the stuff I'm seeing written about this is getting really, really stupid.
Quoting sankaps (Reply 11): 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.
You must not have read some of the previous threads. I've said before and I will say again that I understand why the FAA did what it did, although this action has raised the bar in terms of airworthiness standards. However, some of the stuff I've read recently about it has been really, really ignorant, and some of the commenters (including one who has been frequent on these threads) are people that I suspect are working for short-sellers, using social media to try to drive down the stock price. I read a blogger, whom I won't dignify with a link, who wrote this yesterday: "The 787 will not fly again for many years, if ever." Nothing whatsoever to back that statement, but if you can get institutional stockholders to start panic-selling, you can make a killing.
BoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1013 posts, RR: 2 Reply 47, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 27391 times:
Quoting art (Reply 38): Is this the first time the certificate of airworthiness has been withdrawn for a Boeing jet aircraft (rather than a directive to undertake certain actions before flight is permitted again)?
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 course of action for the FAA to take but as of now it has not been withdrawn
maxter From Australia, joined May 2009, 192 posts, RR: 0 Reply 48, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 26628 times:
Quoting cornutt (Reply 46): However, some of the stuff I've read recently about it has been really, really ignorant, and some of the commenters (including one who has been frequent on these threads) are people that I suspect are working for short-sellers, using social media to try to drive down the stock price.
...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 mind me saying... unbelievable.
seahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 50, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 25855 times:
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 said many threads before). If a battery thermal event can be fully contained that major risk factor is gone. So the need for the grounding should be gone. Improving battery reliability, perhaps re-designing the way the APU can be started and used, changing the battery type or any other design changes can come later, while the safety could be safeguarded by limiting the 787 to ETOPS 120 or 180 (depending on the current rules for battery failures). It would still be inconvenient enough for the airlines and Boeing to keep the pressure on Boeing to find a final solution, but it would surely ease the financial pressure on Boeing and would help to safe American jobs and American interests.
ZKOKQ From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 290 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 25691 times:
Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 45): Strangely enough very few people understand / purposely choose to ignore the fact that the bulk of the 787 problems are self induced by an overmatched CEO and/or dysfunctional corporate governance system.
You cant be serious? Most of the 787 fate was in place before he even took over as CEO.
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 1804 posts, RR: 6 Reply 52, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 25773 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 36): All a/c delivered were sold not leased.
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 that case they have to pay back the loan, what means they are losing money.
LJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4149 posts, RR: 1 Reply 55, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 25584 times:
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 52):
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 that case they have to pay back the loan, what means they are losing money.
The LOT 787s have been fiannced by Apple Bank, which has given another financial institution the right to issue securitsed bonds. This means that froma legal point of view LOT owns the 787s but has pledged these 787 as collateral for the loan (or else one couldn't isasue a covered bond). To my knowledge very few airlines are able to secure financing for aircraft without pledging the aircraft as collateral. Hopefully, the financiers believe that their collateral hasn't decreased in value due to this grounding or else some clauses may become efective (though I seriously doubt that this will happen if the issue is sorted out this year).
Quoting Stitch (Reply 39):
I would guess so, though it will probably be the insurance companies that pay (who will recover the costs by raising everyone's rates).
Indeed, but they won't be happy to pay and thus will do their best not to pay. Moreover, some airlines (i.e. Norwegian) hired aircraft which resulted in a capacity drop (the current configuration of the A340s they hired have 24 seats less than the 291 DY intended to put in the 787), which is doubtfull if this can be reimbursed by either Boeing or an insurance company. Furthermore, loss in competitiveness is difficult to price. For example, QR has to postpone CTU due to the 787 issues. By the time they enter the market, the competition is there already and QR will ge at a disadvantage.
Quoting seahawk (Reply 50): I do not expect that the grounding will last a year or so, the FAA has other options to handle available.
However, unless Boeing manages to get their 787s out as scheduled, all future customers are delayed as well, which won't make them happy.
Quoting seahawk (Reply 50): Improving battery reliability, perhaps re-designing the way the APU can be started and used, changing the battery type or any other design changes can come later, while the safety could be safeguarded by limiting the 787 to ETOPS 120 or 180 (depending on the current rules for battery failures). It would still be inconvenient enough for the airlines and Boeing to keep the pressure on Boeing to find a final solution, but it would surely ease the financial pressure on Boeing and would help to safe American jobs and American interests.
How many of the current and proposed 787 routes are ETOPS 180 or 180+? Moreover how many ETOPS 180+ routes do exist? Is i.e. MAD - SCL or FRA - HND an ETOPS 180 or 180+ route?
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2468 posts, RR: 21 Reply 57, posted (2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 24747 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 40): Were they fully owned by the airlines? In most cases, the airline may or may not directly purchase the aircraft, but if they do they typically immediately sell it to a leasing company and lease it back.
I would think responsible posters would verify the status before trolling.
Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 45): Strangely enough very few people understand / purposely choose to ignore the fact that the bulk of the 787 problems are self induced by an overmatched CEO and/or dysfunctional corporate governance system.
Strangely how some people have a predetermined mindset of accountability without any actual knowledge of the timeline, responsibilities and organizational structure. And keep trolling for support.
hivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 58, posted (2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 24732 times:
Quoting seahawk (Reply 50): If a battery thermal event can be fully contained that major risk factor is gone.
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 certification criteria seems to have called for a 10 to the -9 chance of the battery "venting" smoke/fire but doesn't seem to have directly addressed the occurrance of a burning battery. I suspect that the FAA is going to want to see a new plan detailing how the problem of two batteries frying within 8 days of one another is going to be remidied.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 59, posted (2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 24689 times:
Quoting hivue (Reply 58): I suspect that the FAA is going to want to see a new plan detailing how the problem of two batteries frying within 8 days of one another is going to be remidied.
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 causes) is (are) found that is why Boeing is pushing for verified containment as an interim fix.
And yes, it's an interim fix regardless of how Boeing currently presents it because once the root causes are found, they will have to be addressed via AD and that will involve some level of changes down the road. I also expect Boeing will be required to adjust the cathode chemistry.
I also expect the FAA is going to require changes to the Battery Management and Battery Charging Systems if what I have been reading in another forum is accurate.
14ccKemiskt From Sweden, joined Nov 2010, 62 posts, RR: 0 Reply 60, posted (2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 24364 times:
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 formal step or will the actual implementation and testing of the fix also require an approval before the AD is lifted?
If the latter is true, could the FAA really deny the 787 going back into the air, given that no fires occur during testing?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 61, posted (2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 24383 times:
Quoting 14ccKemiskt (Reply 60): 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 formal step or will the actual implementation and testing of the fix also require an approval before the AD is lifted?
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 revenue service.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 62, posted (2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 24236 times:
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 52): Quoting kanban (Reply 36):
All a/c delivered were sold not leased.
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 that case they have to pay back the loan, what means they are losing money.
There was a recent news item where LOT was quoted saying that the 787 grounding was costing them about $50,000 a day.
hivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 63, posted (2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 24144 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 59): Quoting hivue (Reply 58):
I suspect that the FAA is going to want to see a new plan detailing how the problem of two batteries frying within 8 days of one another is going to be remidied.
That can't happen until a root cause is determined by both the NTSB and the JTSB.
Very true -- which makes me pessimistic that the 787 will be flying again anytime soon.
PanAmPaul From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 77 posts, RR: 0 Reply 64, posted (2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 24036 times:
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 emergency landing and the "inspections" JAL and ANA were going to do.
I found the quote in the last sentence of this excerpt especially revealing:
"On Jan. 15, Ray Conner was preparing to address 900 executives at the next day’s annual Boeing Senior Leadership Meeting in downtown Seattle when he got a phone call.
Larry Loftis, general manager of the 787 program, told Conner that an All Nippon Airways 787 was having battery problems, just a week after the lithium-ion battery had burned aboard a Japan Airlines Dreamliner in Boston.
Conner immediately called the Boeing corporate CEO, McNerney, in Chicago.
“We talked throughout the night,” Conner said. “We both kind of came to the same conclusion” — that Boeing’s flagship plane was about to be grounded worldwide."
Once again demonstrating that the grounding by the FAA was not an over-reaction as some here had claimed in the early days, it was the only realistic choice they had really.
PITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 959 posts, RR: 12 Reply 66, posted (2 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 23663 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 59): [An FAA-approved plan to prevent battery failure] can't happen until a root cause is determined by both the NTSB and the JTSB.
Quoting hivue (Reply 63): which makes me pessimistic that the 787 will be flying again anytime soon.
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 that with a suitably high probability, such failure must not imperil flight.
I'm sure that the FAA would prefer to know exactly what happened, and it's the NTSB's mandate to try to find out; but there is no requirement that it be determined before the grounding is lifted. If Boeing comes up with a containment plan that keeps flight safety at the required margin even if a battery burns up every 8 days, there is no justifiable reason for the FAA to not accept it. I realize that that's an extreme position but it's perfectly legitimate. Naturally, Boeing will want to make whatever reasonable improvements they can think of to the battery itself and related circuits.
mcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1278 posts, RR: 17 Reply 67, posted (2 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 23591 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 57): Strangely how some people have a predetermined mindset of accountability without any actual knowledge of the timeline, responsibilities and organizational structure. And keep trolling for support
How do would you be able to defend the timeline, responsibilities and organizational structure? The 787 is a failure in every aspect so far. Attempting to prove otherwise would be quite entertaining.
BoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1013 posts, RR: 2 Reply 68, posted (2 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 23584 times:
Quoting PITingres (Reply 67): I'm sure that the FAA would prefer to know exactly what happened, and it's the NTSB's mandate to try to find out; but there is no requirement that it be determined before the grounding is lifted. If Boeing comes up with a containment plan that keeps flight safety at the required margin even if a battery burns up every 8 days, there is no justifiable reason for the FAA to not accept it.
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 certified under. Are the FAA going to be willing to loosen these requirements? I doubt it.
Also the little problem of pilots, passengers, airlines and press not accepting this failure frequency.
So yes, there are justifiable reasons for the FAA not to accept that.
14ccKemiskt From Sweden, joined Nov 2010, 62 posts, RR: 0 Reply 69, posted (2 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 23446 times:
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 10 million flight hours and I am not satisfied.
If you calculate on each Dreamliner flying 12 hours a day with 120 planes beeing delivered every year from 2014, then 10 million flight hours (along with a presumable "smoke event") would have been accumulated sometime during 2018. And with the same math, the next "smoke event" would have been in 2021, then again in 2023 and from 2026 around once a year. Did Boeing and FAA really count on this happening so often?
And this is only calculating flight hours. The JAL plane battery burned when the plane was on the ground with the engines shut off, so the 12 hours/day should maybe be something around 20-22 hours a day, only subtracting the hours when the plane is totally shut down.
The figure of having a "smoke event" at this rate seems in my book to be very much too often to be acceptable (let alone twice in 50,000 flight hours). Of course, it was implied that when a "event" occurred, the containment would handle it, but it still feels that it would have been rather uncomfortable given the rate of it beyond 2026.
phxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 624 posts, RR: 1 Reply 70, posted (2 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 23423 times:
Quoting mcdu (Reply 67): The 787 is a failure in every aspect so far.
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 787 is flawless and the model of perfection. However to call it a failure in every aspect is sensational and ignorant.
Quoting 14ccKemiskt (Reply 69):
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 10 million flight hours and I am not satisfied.
Join the club. The FAA and NTSB agree with you - hence the grounding.
Wisdom From Netherlands, joined Apr 2011, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 71, posted (2 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 23360 times:
Quoting phxa340 (Reply 70): 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 787 is flawless and the model of perfection. However to call it a failure in every aspect is sensational and ignorant.
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 worked out issue by issue as with any EIS, and if Boeing continues to offer more than decent support and compensation, the airlines will play the game.
If the airlines start feeling that it will cost more money and resources to bear with the B787, both from short and long-term perspectives, they will not hesitate to cancel if their contracts allow them to do so.
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 teething issues.
The benefits of being a manufacturer that is part of a duopoly is that if you totally screw up - there aren't many other places your customers can go
slcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 73, posted (2 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 23318 times:
Quoting phxa340 (Reply 70): Quoting mcdu (Reply 67):
The 787 is a failure in every aspect so far.
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 787 is flawless and the model of perfection. However to call it a failure in every aspect is sensational and ignorant.
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, awful, and has inconvenienced alot of people.
PITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 959 posts, RR: 12 Reply 74, posted (2 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 23267 times:
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 68): 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 certified under.
The FAA is free to modify those conditions if they believe that doing so would produce equivalent or better flight safety because of altered circumstances. The FAA wrote 'em, they can erase 'em if they want to.
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 68): Also the little problem of pilots, passengers, airlines and press not accepting this failure frequency.
Flight safety is not a popularity contest. Stuff fails on airliners all the time and it's accepted. As long as there are no particularly serious consequences, which was my hypothesis, why should anyone worry about it?
I'm not saying that the FAA will do any of this, nor that Boeing necessarily wants them to. I'm just pointing out that the goal here is not "no battery fires", not "no battery failures", and not even "no uncontained flames, smoke, leakage". The goal is safety of flight, and as long as you get there, it doesn't much matter (to the FAA) how you get there. So, statements like "the 787 can't fly again until we know the root cause" are simply incorrect. We'd certainly prefer to know the exact root cause, but at least in theory, we don't HAVE to know it.
hivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 75, posted (2 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 23199 times:
Quoting 14ccKemiskt (Reply 69): 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 10 million flight hours and I am not satisfied.
If you calculate on each Dreamliner flying 12 hours a day with 120 planes beeing delivered every year from 2014, then 10 million flight hours (along with a presumable "smoke event") would have been accumulated sometime during 2018. And with the same math, the next "smoke event" would have been in 2021, then again in 2023 and from 2026 around once a year. Did Boeing and FAA really count on this happening so often?
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 these same calculations. But:
Quoting phxa340 (Reply 70): The FAA and NTSB agree with you - hence the grounding.
Yes, the FAA may very well have now decided that those certification standards were not adequate. Hopefully we will get some idea of their current thinking soon.
cornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 215 posts, RR: 1 Reply 76, posted (2 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 23196 times:
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 68): 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 certified under. Are the FAA going to be willing to loosen these requirements? I doubt it.
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 of the special conditions, and in my reading, it does not say that. What it does say is that the effects of a battery fire must be contained. That's in line with the normal process of hazard analysis: the hazard is not the fire per se, but the knock-on effects of a fire -- release of flame, heat, smoke, flammable vapors, corrosives, etc. If one can show that those effects are contained to within the 10^-9 probability standard, making plausible worst-case assumptions about everything else, then the certification standard has been met.
Also, during the public comment period on the special conditions, the Air Line Pilots' Association submitted a petition asking the FAA to state that the occurrence of a fire, at any level of probability, would be unacceptable. The FAA took a pass on this, responding to the petition with a "no changes" reply.
It's worth a review of the special conditions for this point. Here is the item from the Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-10-11/pdf/E7-19980.pdf. Scoll down to the last page to read the actual conditions first, then go back to the top and read the notes, background, and public comments.
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 68): Also the little problem of pilots, passengers, airlines and press not accepting this failure frequency.
It's admittedly a tightrope; however, strictly speaking, perception is a problem for the industry to worry about, not the FAA. The FAA must maintain certification standards, but it cannot be seen to be reacting to sensationalist press or rumor-mongering not supported by data.
RickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 481 posts, RR: 0 Reply 77, posted (2 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 23260 times:
Quoting PITingres (Reply 74): I'm not saying that the FAA will do any of this, nor that Boeing necessarily wants them to. I'm just pointing out that the goal here is not "no battery fires", not "no battery failures", and not even "no uncontained flames, smoke, leakage". The goal is safety of flight, and as long as you get there, it doesn't much matter (to the FAA) how you get there. So, statements like "the 787 can't fly again until we know the root cause" are simply incorrect. We'd certainly prefer to know the exact root cause, but at least in theory, we don't HAVE to know it.
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 be managed, but this risk had not been managed adequately.
BoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1013 posts, RR: 2 Reply 78, posted (2 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 23202 times:
Quoting PITingres (Reply 74):
The FAA is free to modify those conditions if they believe that doing so would produce equivalent or better flight safety because of altered circumstances. The FAA wrote 'em, they can erase 'em if they want to.
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 will stick with them. Any movement out of step by any world aviation authority would be question mark on the safety of all 787's.
Quoting cornutt (Reply 76): 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 of the special conditions, and in my reading, it does not say that. What it does say is that the effects of a battery fire must be contained.
I've seen this this statement made a number of times, its a selected self serving reading of the conditions, so lets go through them:
Quote: (1) Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained during
any foreseeable charging or discharging condition and during any
failure of the charging or battery monitoring system not shown to be
extremely remote. The lithium ion battery installation must preclude
explosion in the event of those failures.
(2) Design of the lithium ion batteries must preclude the
occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature or
pressure.
(1) Safe cell pressure must be maintained during any foreseeable charging or discharging condition and during any
failure of the charging or battery monitoring system not shown to be extremely remote [the cells cannot burst] if they do bursts [outside of during any foreseeable charging or discharging condition] they must not explode. Additionally failure of the battery or monitoring system have been shown not to be extremely remote.
(2) Thermal runaway or cell burst leading to thermal runaway is not permitted. Period.
We also now have the additional problem with (1) that even though we don't presently know the mechanism that cause the battery issues we can foresee that the present system if left unchanged will create this battery fire condition again, putting the battery in a fire proof box doesn't change that.
rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2066 posts, RR: 6 Reply 79, posted (2 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 22972 times:
Quoting PITingres (Reply 74): So, statements like "the 787 can't fly again until we know the root cause" are simply incorrect. We'd certainly prefer to know the exact root cause, but at least in theory, we don't HAVE to know it.
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 root cause" is known.
The statement is "in theory" not correct. In reality I doubt that the FAA and Boeing would be adviced well to sign off any further compromise.
If batteries are allowed to burn down at a higher than initially defined rate, a new requirement would have to be applied that goes like that "a better containment shall contain battery fires in all but 1 of 100000 cases". That way you could "get" the same overall safety (change the numbers if needed), but it would be insane. Because there would be frequent battery fires and everybody would be paralized to watch whether the prediction this time will turn out acccurate...
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 80, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 22854 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 44): And these payments to a third party you wouldn't authorize if you were an airline which purchased a now-grounded 787? Seems illogical.
I would demand that the manufacturer pay them. You sold me a bum plane. You pay the lease until it flies again.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 42): 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 run late with our order, well, we won't ask for anything more and will quietly just wait our turn.
The A380 was very poorly done. And yet next to the 787 it looks like a class act. Let's not forget that we are now talking about a delay of about FOUR years now. The 787 was supposed to have EIS in 2008. It EIS'ed in 4Q 2011. Barely a year later, it was grounded. The grounding might add a YEAR to the delay. This is truly unprecedented AFAIK in all of commercial aviation history.
But what you say underscores the need for a third player in the large aircraft market.
seahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 81, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 22838 times:
Quoting hivue (Reply 58): 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 certification criteria seems to have called for a 10 to the -9 chance of the battery "venting" smoke/fire but doesn't seem to have directly addressed the occurrance of a burning battery. I suspect that the FAA is going to want to see a new plan detailing how the problem of two batteries frying within 8 days of one another is going to be remidied.
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 with ETOPS limitations I would guess. Depending on the who you ask it could be ETOPS 120 or ETOPS 180, based on the current operational procedures for a battery failure.
In the end one would have to know the certification documentation of the current design. If the FAA or NTSB come to the conclusion that they have been intentionally mislead by Boeing during the original process, for example by Boeing down playing risk factors, or not mentioning them, they might still refuse to lift the grounding. Especially if the reliabaility of the batteries is important for the operational safety of critical systems.If a reduced battery reliability puts those systems under an acceptable threshold, it could be a long grounding.
mcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1278 posts, RR: 17 Reply 82, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 22364 times:
Quoting phxa340 (Reply 70): 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 787 is flawless and the model of perfection. However to call it a failure in every aspect is sensational and ignorant.
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 to only be faced with another delay.
Once their is an alternative you will see the airlines start to cancel orders. Until that time the airlines will wait and see if Boeing can finally deliver on all those lofty promises.
Show one benchmark where the 787 has been a success or beaten a timeline? Paper promises are nothing. Proving it in the field is where it really matters.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 84, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 21920 times:
Quoting mcdu (Reply 82): Show one benchmark where the 787 has been a success or beaten a timeline?
In the benchmark area, it's been a success in terms of economics per NH and JL.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 85, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 21880 times:
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 83): Before making outlandish claims like this, go and read up on the De Haviland Comet's developement. Much worse.
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 knowing or predicting the impact of square windows (with sharp corners) on metal fatigue in a pressurized jet aircraft. And the program never recovered from that, though it paved the way for modern commercial jetliners.
Is the 787 headed down the same path, in that it is on the bleeding edge of multiple new technologies never tried before on a commercial airliner (carbon load-bearing wing joints, all-electric systems, humongous Li-Ion batteries), not to mention a whole new design and manufacturing process? The world will benefit from the 787's learnings for sure, but will the 787 itself be able to live up to its promise and overcome known and unknown challenges as it tests new frontiers, or will it go the path of the Comet? That remains to be seen.
hivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 86, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 21724 times:
Quoting seahawk (Reply 81): If the FAA or NTSB come to the conclusion that they have been intentionally mislead by Boeing during the original process, for example by Boeing down playing risk factors, or not mentioning them, they might still refuse to lift the grounding.
This likely would apply even if any underestimate of risk was unintentional. Events appear to have revealed that Boeing's functional hazard assessment, which was used to determine whether certification criteria were met, has come up wanting. It will be interesting to see what a new hazard assessment might look like. For instance, Boeing's assessment said that "overcharging was the only known failure mode that could result in cell venting with fire" (quote from report). If overcharging is ruled out in the JAL incident then I would think the whole hazard assessment process will have to be revisited. And it's likely not much progress on fixes could be made until a valid risk assessment is in place.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 84): In the benchmark area, it's been a success in terms of economics per NH and JL.
Sounds like it may not be as financially beneficial as you would imply. This grounding will eventually lead to cancellations of orders. It's just a metter of time.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 88, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 21695 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 85): The world will benefit from the 787's learnings for sure, but will the 787 itself be able to live up to its promise and overcome known and unknown challenges as it tests new frontiers, or will it go the path of the Comet? That remains to be seen.
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, the B707 had already received its certificate of airworthiness.
CALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 1588 posts, RR: 22 Reply 89, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 21725 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 85): 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 knowing or predicting the impact of square windows (with sharp corners) on metal fatigue in a pressurized jet aircraft. And the program never recovered from that, though it paved the way for modern commercial jetliners.
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 major flaw that doomed the Comet. Strangely, the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Administration, predecessor to the FAA, had misgivings about the square windows of the Comet several years earlier and refused to grant it an air-worthiness certificate so it could fly in the United States."
"Basically, they were guessing. The modifications included the installation of shields between the engines and fuel tanks, reinforced fuel lines and new smoke detectors. Less than two months later, with the modifications in place, the Comets again took to the skies. The engineers crossed their fingers, hoping their shotgun approach had found the real culprit. It hadn't. Sadly, only two weeks after resuming service, another BOAC Comet disappeared. "
Quoting sankaps (Reply 85): Is the 787 headed down the same path, in that it is on the bleeding edge of multiple new technologies never tried before on a commercial airliner (carbon load-bearing wing joints, all-electric systems, humongous Li-Ion batteries), not to mention a whole new design and manufacturing process? The world will benefit from the 787's learnings for sure, but will the 787 itself be able to live up to its promise and overcome known and unknown challenges as it tests new frontiers, or will it go the path of the Comet? That remains to be seen.
This does remain to be seen, but I do believe the 787 will get through it's maturing pains and become a successful airliner. Different times now than back in the 1950s.
mcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1278 posts, RR: 17 Reply 90, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 21648 times:
Quoting art (Reply 88): It took several years to redesign the Comet and by the time the Comet 4 received its certification, the B707 had already received its certificate of airworthiness.
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 very well do the same. Where we once had TAF (turboprop avoidance factor) after Roselawn. The 787 may have its own avoidance issues.
Boeing should be concerned for the future at the present state of the company.
jbcarioca From Brazil, joined Jan 2013, 8 posts, RR: 0 Reply 91, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 21566 times:
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 see no parallel with the Comet because the 787 has a design and capacities that make it ideally suited for ready needs. The Comet, even if it had had no crashes, was small, short range and inefficient. It would have failed even without the crashes because it had no ability to do trans-atlantic. Even the original 707 only became really successful when it was reengined for increased range.
The 787 is so ideally suited for the needs that airlines will wait, IMHO. After all the A350 is more competitive at larger versions while the smaller B787's have no competitor other than the A330 and presumably B767.
It will probably take a while but the traveling public will not remember or notice. Twenty years ago we probably will have forgotten this too and the B787 will be ubiquitous.
PITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 959 posts, RR: 12 Reply 92, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 21525 times:
Quoting mcdu (Reply 90): The comet lost the confidence of the traving publis also. The 787 may very well do the same.
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 think that will be crucial to public perception. I think some a.netters tend to wildly over-estimate the public reaction to the 787.
However, we shall see. In any case, that's what marketing departments are for...
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 93, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 21462 times:
Quoting art (Reply 88): 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, the B707 had already received its certificate of airworthiness.
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 elsewhere in the aircraft. And the A350 is getting closer to first flight, and, like the 707, is benefiting from seeing the issues the 787 is grappling with, starkly illustrated by Airbus' decision to switch back to NiCad on the A350.
One hopes of course, for the sake of Boeing and the wonderful aircraft it has given the world, that the 787 does not go the way of the Comet.
PacNWjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 839 posts, RR: 0 Reply 94, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 21458 times:
Quoting PITingres (Reply 92): I think some a.netters tend to wildly over-estimate the public reaction to the 787.
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 while? And that was only three years ago. It's also worth remembering that the fate of the DC-10 was seriously in doubt after the American DC-10 crash in Chicago in 1979. There was real public fear about that aircraft model following the crash, and yet eventually the fear went away, at least for the vast majority of the traveling public. People have relatively short memories.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18871 posts, RR: 64 Reply 95, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 21305 times:
Quoting PITingres (Reply 92): I think some a.netters tend to wildly over-estimate the public reaction to the 787.
As do I, but the ball is really in Boeing's court. They've got one shot to make this right.
Quoting PacNWjet (Reply 94): It's also worth remembering that the fate of the DC-10 was seriously in doubt after the American DC-10 crash in Chicago in 1979. There was real public fear about that aircraft model following the crash, and yet eventually the fear went away, at least for the vast majority of the traveling public.
After AA191 I always felt a bit uneasy flying the DC-10. I still flew it if the routing was vastly better by schedule/price, but still channeled my travel dollars towards airlines where the L-1011 or 747 was available. I know I wasn't alone in that regard.
Fatal accidents are so few and far between these days, I doubt if the 787 will be as forgiven if another mishap occurs of any magnitude, especially if there's major loss of life involved. People will ask what else there is to go wrong that hasn't yet been discovered. That's just human nature.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 96, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 21294 times:
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 planes than Comet and airlines responded by ordering them instead of more Comets, not because passengers were afraid to fly the Comet and not afraid to fly the 707 or DC-8.
14ccKemiskt From Sweden, joined Nov 2010, 62 posts, RR: 0 Reply 97, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 21225 times:
Quoting PITingres (Reply 92): I think some a.netters tend to wildly over-estimate the public reaction to the 787.
Quoting PacNWjet (Reply 94): People have relatively short memories.
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 has to decrease the likelyness of a "smoke event" of occuring with at least a factor of five (see reply 69) from the original certification presumption as well as managing to keep any such event contained so that an emergency landing won't be needed, should it occur. A plane type that frequently has to do a lot of emergency diversions wil get a lot of bad publicity each time.
The public's eyes are on the Dreamliner now and it will be watched closely for many years to come. The confidence will come back after this current situation but it will be brittle and the fall will be deeper than for any other aircraft type if something more happens.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 98, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 21199 times:
Quoting mcdu (Reply 90): The comet lost the confidence of the traving publis also. The 787 may very well do the same. Where we once had TAF (turboprop avoidance factor) after Roselawn. The 787 may have its own avoidance issues.
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 flying on the 787 once the problems are fixed. Perhaps I'm wrong and it's a different, more fearful era but I don't see airlines cancelling their 787 orders for alternatives that are far less economical (767, A330). The A350 has a long backlog so how many would switch to it if it meant waiting years more for new metal?
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2468 posts, RR: 21 Reply 99, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 21192 times:
Quoting 14ccKemiskt (Reply 97): The public's eyes are on the Dreamliner now and it will be watched closely for many years to come.
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 byte" press... Look at Aviation Herald and see the daily flight problems. If people were actually worried they'd never fly. Of course there is the "It won't happen to me" syndrome.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 100, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 21170 times:
Quoting 14ccKemiskt (Reply 97): The public's eyes are on the Dreamliner now and it will be watched closely for many years to come.
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 years of EIS. And yet airlines kept ordering them by the score and passengers kept flying them.
The 737 Jurassic and Classic suffered two known and one probable hull loss in a three-year period due to uncommanded rudder deflection as well as three additional incidents that were successfully recovered by the flight crew over an eight-year period and yet airlines continued to order them by the hundreds and passengers kept flying them.
As kanban notes, people's memories are short and there are much more interesting news stories to grab their attention. We fixate on it because we're aviation fans, but even most of us would not deliberately book away from the 787 once it is returned to service.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 102, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 21267 times:
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 102): Huh??? They're about the same size as a car battery.
This kind of hyperbole is why many knowledgeable posters have abandoned these threads.
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.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 103, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 21261 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 100): 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 years of EIS. And yet airlines kept ordering them by the score and passengers kept flying them.
That was a generation ago. Safety expectations have changed dramatically since then. I doubt the A320 would have gotten away, regardless of root cause, if its EIS and the accidents were happening now.
14ccKemiskt From Sweden, joined Nov 2010, 62 posts, RR: 0 Reply 104, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 21282 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 100): 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 years of EIS. And yet airlines kept ordering them by the score and passengers kept flying them.
The 737 Jurassic and Classic suffered two known and one probable hull loss in a three-year period due to uncommanded rudder deflection as well as three additional incidents that were successfully recovered by the flight crew over an eight-year period and yet airlines continued to order them by the hundreds and passengers kept flying them.
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 significant drop in orders for the 737 during the "rudder years" (1991-96).
CALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 1588 posts, RR: 22 Reply 105, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 21244 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 95): As do I, but the ball is really in Boeing's court. They've got one shot to make this right.
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 going to work out. The Comet had much more serious issues, and it first flew in 1949 and flew for over 60 years. It will get worked out.
BlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2515 posts, RR: 25 Reply 106, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 21231 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 100): As kanban notes, people's memories are short and there are much more interesting news stories to grab their attention. We fixate on it because we're aviation fans, but even most of us would not deliberately book away from the 787 once it is returned to service.
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 cancel all Boeing Dreamliner flights until at least July whilst Boeing continues to search for the cause of on-board fires.
Whether for the right or wrong reasons, I'm afraid the press are most certainly still watching this saga. Mention "fire" with "passenger aircraft," and suddenly everyone is watching.
Rgds
So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
hivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 107, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 21247 times:
Quoting 14ccKemiskt (Reply 97): as well as managing to keep any such event contained so that an emergency landing won't be needed, should it occur.
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 airport regardless of how contained the event is.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2468 posts, RR: 21 Reply 108, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 21201 times:
Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 108):
Whether for the right or wrong reasons, I'm afraid the press are most certainly still watching this saga.
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 lighter than air vehicles.. and they included the Graf Zeppelin tragedy.. why.. sensationalism. what us say was tagged solely to catch your attention
BlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2515 posts, RR: 25 Reply 109, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21178 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 110): 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 lighter than air vehicles.. and they included the Graf Zeppelin tragedy.. why.. sensationalism. what us say was tagged solely to catch your attention
Sensationalism, quite so; but factually incorrect...?
Rgds
So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
UALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2331 posts, RR: 2 Reply 110, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21216 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 100): 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 years of EIS.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 100): The 737 Jurassic and Classic suffered two known and one probable hull loss in a three-year period due to uncommanded rudder deflection
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 of them (one AA, one UA) within 3 days of each other in November 1965!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 111, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 20958 times:
Quoting 14ccKemiskt (Reply 105): In the A320 case, all crashes were due to pilot error.
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 this forum saying that they were caused by the FBW system overriding the flight crew.
Quoting 14ccKemiskt (Reply 105): And there was a significant drop in orders for the 737 during the "rudder years" (1991-96).
Which were the same years the A320 was competing with the 737 Classic and offering greater range, allowing the A320 to take on missions formally only doable with a 757.
Once the 737NG entered service in 1997, orders rebounded because the NG was directly competitive with the A320.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18871 posts, RR: 64 Reply 112, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 20518 times:
Quoting phxa340 (Reply 117): On a more related note Boeing stock is up 2% on news that Boeing has discovered what caused both batteries to fail
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 conference.
Kaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2579 posts, RR: 24 Reply 114, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 19644 times:
Quoting mcdu (Reply 113): The 787 is a one card monte game. From the fake rollout to the grounding the airplane has had serious issues and BA has done little to quell the concerns of those in the industry.
Quoting mcdu (Reply 82): Once their is an alternative you will see the airlines start to cancel orders. Until that time the airlines will wait and see if Boeing can finally deliver on all those lofty promises.
Quoting mcdu (Reply 67): The 787 is a failure in every aspect so far.
Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 45): Strangely enough very few people understand / purposely choose to ignore the fact that the bulk of the 787 problems are self induced by an overmatched CEO and/or dysfunctional corporate governance system.
A little perspective is in order.
- The 787 has hundreds of thousands of components and systems, the vast majority of them working perfectly well, although there will doubtless be multiple ADs over the life of the aircraft
- Design, certification, production and EIS issues affecting modern aircraft, including the 777, A32x, A380, EJ, F35, Citation are legion, as has been pointed out in earlier threads
- Boeing has had issues with outsourcing and EIS - just like those experienced by Airbus, Toyota, Honda, Dell, Rolls, GE, P&W, IBM, Sony, Lockheed, .....
- None of the 787 systems/components were designed by idiots on the back of a napkin. For example, the BMU has the following design characteristics (from the last NTSB interim factual report):
"The BMU is a subassembly that is mounted in the battery case . The BMU includes a main circuit card and a sub-circuit card, each of which contains two independent monitoring systems: BMU1 and BMU2 (main circuit card)
and BMU3 and BMU4 (sub-circuit card). Each of the four BMU systems has an initiated built-in test function. The
main circuit card and sub-circuit card installed on the incident airplane were manufactured by Kanto Aircraft Instrument Company (KAI), Ltd., in March and April 2012, respectively.
BMU1 monitors for cell overcharge, over discharge, overheating, and imbalance; controls the cell balancing function when any cell reaches a predetermined threshold ; and is the source of voltage for the BCU. BMU2 provides a redundant
monitor for cell overcharge. BMU3 controls the contactor and provides additional monitoring for battery and cell overcharge. BMU4 monitors for cell over discharge and high current charge. If any of the battery monitoring thresholds were exceeded, the BMU was designed to send a signal to the BCU to discontinue charging."
- As of October, 2012, the FAA has documented 167 incidents involving Li-Ion batteries in consumer electronics on board aircraft. In at least 15 of these, it was pure dumb luck that there were not serious consequences. There have been two hull losses (and fatalities) resulting from consumer Li-Ion batteries on aircraft. Just yesterday, the person sitting beside me on a flight plugged his BBerry into his Playbook charger and wondered after 5 minutes why the BBerry was getting hot.
Yes, there's an issue. Which needs to be worked through in an objective, dispassionate way by people with the expertise and experience to do so. Which no amount of screaming by a.netters that the sky is falling is going to ameliorate.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 115, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 19536 times:
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 131): Which needs to be worked through in an objective, dispassionate way by people with the expertise and experience to do so. Which no amount of screaming by a.netters that the sky is falling is going to ameliorate.
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 airlines, and calling the grounding move political, etc, is also not fair game.
I think that is what those of us who support the FAA position are essentially saying to those "experts" here who keep referring to the grounding as an over-reaction, and then pulling out stats from A320s and 727s early days 25-50 years ago, and of consumer Li-Ion battery fire incidents, to essentially suggest the FAA ad NTSB don't know what they are doing.
cornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 215 posts, RR: 1 Reply 117, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 19469 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 134): I think that is what those of us who support the FAA position are essentially saying to those "experts" here who keep referring to the grounding as an over-reaction
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 raised the bar, as you have mentioned. And I think that caught some people off guard; no one really knew that the bar was going to be raised at this particular moment.
I completely agree that the existing implementation does not meet the certification standard. What I disagree with are the insinuations that some posters keep repeating that the reasons for not meeting the standard include either gross incompetence or deliberate fraud on Boeing's part.
cornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 215 posts, RR: 1 Reply 118, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 19315 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 138): I think what people are saying is Boeing (or McDD management running Boeing post-merger) changed too many things at one time with the 787, introduced too many relatively untested new concepts, in order to meet aggressive financial ROI goals to get the program launched, and that was a mistake. It is not just hindsight, this has been feared since the early days of the 787 program.
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. During the execution of the program, and particularly after the delays started to pile up, there were a lot of complaints around Defense & Space about having to be a cash cow for the 787 program. There wasn't a lot of money the past few years to pursue new business, and it has hurt D&S some.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned from the 787 program, and I suspect that some of them won't become apparent for a while yet.
seahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 119, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 18558 times:
Quoting hivue (Reply 86): This likely would apply even if any underestimate of risk was unintentional. Events appear to have revealed that Boeing's functional hazard assessment, which was used to determine whether certification criteria were met, has come up wanting. It will be interesting to see what a new hazard assessment might look like. For instance, Boeing's assessment said that "overcharging was the only known failure mode that could result in cell venting with fire" (quote from report). If overcharging is ruled out in the JAL incident then I would think the whole hazard assessment process will have to be revisited. And it's likely not much progress on fixes could be made until a valid risk assessment is in place.
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 FAA to allow operating the aircraft with a temporary solution, while imposing some limitations on the plane´s operation. This is not uncommon in the aviation industry (like the A380 flying with the not so robust fasteners). If the government safety agency agrees to such a solution however is first and foremost a matter of trust towards the manufacturer.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 120, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17726 times:
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 122): It's surprising to me that the FAA isn't equally concerned about the hundreds of uncontained Li-Ion devices in the cabin of most aircraft - not to mention laptops on the flight deck. A fireball in either place would likely not have a pleasant outcome - and there have been some narrow escapes
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 are professionals in the field, but have no qualms about questioning the judgment and decisions of experts and professionals in the FAA.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18871 posts, RR: 64 Reply 122, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 16944 times:
Quote: WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today approved the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company’s certification plan for the redesigned 787 battery system, after thoroughly reviewing Boeing’s proposed modifications and the company’s plan to demonstrate that the system will meet FAA requirements. The certification plan is the first step in the process to evaluate the 787’s return to flight and requires Boeing to conduct extensive testing and analysis to demonstrate compliance with the applicable safety regulations and special conditions.
“This comprehensive series of tests will show us whether the proposed battery improvements will work as designed,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We won’t allow the plane to return to service unless we’re satisfied that the new design ensures the safety of the aircraft and its passengers.”
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 124, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 16887 times:
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 131): Just broke the news on Fox. So when are we gonna see her flying again?
Probably not anytime soon.
The FAA has approved limited test flights for two prototype aircraft (ZA005 and either ZA004 or ZA006), but they also said "will approve the redesign only if the company successfully completes all required tests and analysis to demonstrate the new design complies with FAA requirements".
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 125, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 16787 times:
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. In their news release, the FAA is clear in pointing out this is just the first step of the process, and the AD is still in effect. I expect the testing process will take a few weeks to complete.
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 1804 posts, RR: 6 Reply 126, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 16775 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 132): The FAA has approved limited test flights for two prototype aircraft (ZA005 and either ZA004 or ZA006), but they also said "will approve the redesign only if the company successfully completes all required tests and analysis to demonstrate the new design complies with FAA requirements".
ZA006 is in change incorporation and ZA004 is missing its engines, but that last one should not be a problem./
Kaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2579 posts, RR: 24 Reply 127, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 16907 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 133): What the FAA has approved is a test plan and test flights for the proposed fix, and not the planned fix itself as yet.
That's not what they said.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today approved the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company’s certification plan for the redesigned 787 battery system, after thoroughly reviewing Boeing’s proposed modifications and the company’s plan to demonstrate that the system will meet FAA requirements.
The certification plan requires a series of tests which must be passed before the 787 could return to service.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 128, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 16865 times:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today approved the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company’s certification plan for the redesigned 787 battery system, after thoroughly reviewing Boeing’s proposed modifications and the company’s plan to demonstrate that the system will meet FAA requirements.
The certification plan requires a series of tests which must be passed before the 787 could return to service.
"The Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday approved Boeing’s plan to test its proposals to fix the battery problems that have grounded its 787 jets since mid-January. "
"“This comprehensive series of tests will show us whether the proposed battery improvements will work as designed,” said Ray LaHood, the transportation secretary. “We won’t allow the plane to return to service unless we’re satisfied that the new design ensures the safety of the aircraft and its passengers.”
I think LaHood's quote clearly demonstrates that the FAA does not know if the proposed fix will work as designed, therefore they could not have approved the fix itself. It is pretty clear what they have approved is a plan to test the proposed fix, which is the first step to eventually approving the fix itself.
In the FAA news release itself, we see:
"We are confident the plan we approved today includes all the right elements to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the battery system redesign," said FAA Administrator Michael P. Huerta. "Today's announcement starts a testing process which will demonstrate whether the proposed fix will work as designed."
Kaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2579 posts, RR: 24 Reply 131, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 16712 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 136):
So what is approved is the test plan, and not the proposed fix itself yet until it passes the tests.
The FAA statement (not a newspaper version of it) clearly states that they approved the "certification plan". Testing is an essential element of the plan (as it is for any certification), but the FAA does not approve "certification plans" for designs that it may not approve even if the testing meets the design requirements.
Interestingly, there is no indication of any change in the "special requirements" set by the FAA for Li-Ion batteries, so those are presumably the standard to which the modifications will be tested.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18871 posts, RR: 64 Reply 132, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 16610 times:
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 Boeing's plan to demonstrate that those modifications will meet FAA requirements.
This is known as "Boeing's certification plan" for the redesigned battery system.
Testing will now begin to see if the proposed improvements will work as designed, so 'the fix' may be installed onto the grounded, in production, and future build planes, after the FAA approves the results of the modifications during testing.
That's all in the first two paragraphs of the FAA's press release. The FAA itself calls it a "certification plan".
What the proposed improvements include:
1) Redesign of the internal battery components to minimize initiation of a short circuit within the battery;
2) Better insulation of the cells; and
3) The addition of a new containment and venting system.
That's all in the third paragraph of the press release.
Now, let's move on, and see how the tests go, and how soon the FAA agrees to release the 787 for flying once again.
B777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1008 posts, RR: 3 Reply 133, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 16374 times:
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 assume the FAA has faith in not only the fix, but also the way in which Boeing are proposing to demonstrate it does fix the problem.
My fundamental problem, however, is still the very "fix" Boeing are proposing.
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4976 posts, RR: 14 Reply 134, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 16341 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 141): Now, let's move on, and see how the tests go, and how soon the FAA agrees to release the 787 for flying once again.
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 handed over to them for free after all this
Hey mods, for the next thread, add something to the title regarding the tests, such as "787 Grounding and FAA Tests part 14" or something along those lines.
PanAmPaul From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 77 posts, RR: 0 Reply 135, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 16200 times:
"Boeing announced that it has received approval from the Federal Aviation Administration to implement its plan to test and certify improvements to the 787 Dreamliner’s lithium-ion battery system. Failures of the high-tech batteries resulted in smoke and fire in two separate instances.
The decision to allow the testing comes roughly two months after the entire fleet of Dreamliners was grounded..
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18871 posts, RR: 64 Reply 136, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15939 times:
Quoting B777LRF (Reply 142): My fundamental problem, however, is still the very "fix" Boeing are proposing.
What problems do you have with what Boeing is proposing?
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 144): Hey mods, for the next thread, add something to the title regarding the tests, such as "787 Grounding and FAA Tests part 14" or something along those lines.
It's confusing enough as it is where to post what without offending people.
cornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 215 posts, RR: 1 Reply 137, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15898 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 123): 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 are professionals in the field, but have no qualms about questioning the judgment and decisions of experts and professionals in the FAA.
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 probability of a hazardous occurrence, with the target probability being based on an assessment of the severity of the hazardous event's consequences. The FAA, contrary to what some people seem to think, does not tell manufacturers what to build. Hence the contention which keeps popping up on this thread that the special conditions prohibit the use of Li-ion batteries cannot be true. In fact, the very reason that the special conditions were written (as it states in the background section) were to address the unique fault modes and hazards associated with lithium-type batteries. If it were the FAA's intent to flatly ban their use, there would have been no need to write the special conditions; the FAA could simply have added a paragraph to the FARs stating "Thou shall not use lithium batteries in aircraft designs" and that would be that.
What the manufacturer must do, via some combination of testing and analysis, is demonstrate that the probability of the hazardous event is lower than what the cert standard calls for. How the manufacturer goes about this is really not the FAA's concern. Admittedly, if one comes to the FAA with a novel approach to meeting the standard, then a more convincing case has to be made, well-supported with facts and data. However, if the safety case is sufficiently robust and it demonstrates that the standard is met, then the FAA has to accept it, no matter how unorthodox the technical approach might be.
Boeing accepts that the existing battery implementation does not meet the standard. The FAA action is novel because, in no previous case that I know of, has the FAA grounded a type without a catastrophic accident having occurred. The FAA's position is that a catastrophic-level hazardous fault occurred, and the fact that no actual catastrophe occurred was random good luck, in effect. Not sure I totally buy that, but it's plausible: what if no one had been aboard the JAL aircraft when its battery faulted? Would the fire have escaped the containment and propagated to the rest of the aircraft? No one really knows. So OK, I get it. Time to get to work on the fix. And that's what Boeing is doing.
And by the way, if it were Airbus, I'd be asking the same questions of the critics. As someone else on this thread pointed out, the media still spreads the myth that the A320 Paris Air Show crash was caused by the fly-by-wire, even though that theory has long been disproven. There's an awful lot of public FUD associated with flying in general, and the sensationalist media has no problem with spreading lies in order to enflame people and sell more papers.
Dan23 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 90 posts, RR: 0 Reply 138, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15838 times:
An excerpt from the Boeing Press Release:
Quote: The FAA also granted Boeing permission to begin flight test activities on two airplanes: line number 86, which will conduct tests to demonstrate that the comprehensive set of solutions work as intended in flight and on the ground; and ZA005, which is scheduled to conduct engine improvement tests unrelated to the battery issue. Additional testing may be scheduled as needed.
It appears that only LN86 will be taking part in the battery re-certification tests. It's an interesting time to be undertaking unrelated engine tests. I suppose, if you can get permission to fly, then why not use the time for other purposes too.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4792 posts, RR: 9 Reply 139, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15787 times:
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 avoiding cities and of course not carrying passengers.
This looks like Formula One where testing is very limited, with many strange rules like allowing a young pilot to drive but only straight lines.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
RickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 481 posts, RR: 0 Reply 140, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15730 times:
Quoting cornutt (Reply 147): Boeing accepts that the existing battery implementation does not meet the standard. The FAA action is novel because, in no previous case that I know of, has the FAA grounded a type without a catastrophic accident having occurred. The FAA's position is that a catastrophic-level hazardous fault occurred, and the fact that no actual catastrophe occurred was random good luck, in effect. Not sure I totally buy that, but it's plausible: what if no one had been aboard the JAL aircraft when its battery faulted? Would the fire have escaped the containment and propagated to the rest of the aircraft? No one really knows. So OK, I get it. Time to get to work on the fix. And that's what Boeing is doing.
I thought it had been established that fire had escaped the containment (so did flammable electrolyte). The fire and heat had scorched a second, smaller Li-Ion directly above it.
B777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1008 posts, RR: 3 Reply 141, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15263 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 136): What problems do you have with what Boeing is proposing?
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 cause and fix that. But that's not what Boeing are proposing; in essence they've seemingly given up on making the battery assy safe, and have instead opted on containment, venting, increased cell spacing, warnings on the ECAM and a few extra lines in the QRH. It may address the root cause, but then again it might not. A solution such as this is, to my safety conditioned mind, not a "fix" - it's more a case of kicking the bucket down the road and hoping for the best.
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
oldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 1904 posts, RR: 4 Reply 142, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 15126 times:
Quoting B777LRF (Reply 141): 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 cause and fix that. But that's not what Boeing are proposing; in essence they've seemingly given up on making the battery assy safe, and have instead opted on containment, venting, increased cell spacing, warnings on the ECAM and a few extra lines in the QRH. It may address the root cause, but then again it might not. A solution such as this is, to my safety conditioned mind, not a "fix" - it's more a case of kicking the bucket down the road and hoping for the best.
Yep, they definitely risk that a plane will fall from the sky, before they bother to really change the faulty design. Unbelievable!
BlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2515 posts, RR: 25 Reply 143, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14985 times:
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, spacing the cells differently, building in layers of buffer and protection, encasing the units, improving venting and moving adjacent batteries to reduce creep threat."
FAA: Ok, but what caused the fire, smoke and thermal runaways?
Boeing: To minimise any further risk due to fire, smoke or thermal runaway, we're redesigning the batteries, spacing the cells differently, building in layers of buffer and protection, encasing the units, improving venting and moving adjacent batteries to reduce creep threat."
FAA: So you don't actually know what caused these events, whether they were related or whether they were 2 separate, co-incidental incidents?
Boeing: We'll have to get back to on that one, but we're doing our utmost to ensure if/when it happens again, we've done all we can to contain it. However, to minimise any further risk due to fire, smoke or thermal runaway, we're redesigning the batteries.............
Quote: Boeing's proposal to the FAA is not a temporary "band-aid" that would be supplanted by another solution later, said a second source, who also was not authorized to speak publicly.
So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3196 posts, RR: 10 Reply 144, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14973 times:
Quoting B777LRF (Reply 141): in essence they've seemingly given up on making the battery assy safe, and have instead opted on containment, venting, increased cell spacing, warnings on the ECAM and a few extra lines in the QRH.
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 which caused the batteries to go suicidal is not precisely understood. Without that knowledge, there is only so much they can do. The only thing to do is to take the best educated guess and work on that basis.
I have no doubt that Boeing's proposal will make the 787 safe to fly, but I fear that this is not the end of the battery issues altogether.
I believe it is likely that further batteries issues will arise during operations. They will likely be low-key events, but will eventually give enough operational knowledge of the system to implement further modifications, through ADs and improved batteries, which will eventually make the battery system reliable.
This initial re-certification, in my eyes, mostly addresses the safety issues related to a runaway Lithium battery.
The battery system itself is not yet completely operationally mature and might not be for a little while, as would be expected of a radically new design anyway. But it will now be safe enough to operate. Hopefully.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12337 posts, RR: 12 Reply 146, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14814 times:
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 revision of the battery system will work, but it could still end up a failure in testing or worse after several months of airline revenue use failures could occur. There are huge financial and political pressures on Boeing as well as the FAA to get the 787 flying again, the 787 has already been frought with far too many problems and delays and I hope this really works out for the benefit of everyone.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 147, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14788 times:
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 design?
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9086 posts, RR: 37 Reply 148, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14730 times:
Quoting art (Reply 147): or will they be testing batteries coming off the production line making batteries to the new design?
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 - mainly consisting of more space between cells, plus ceramic insulation; together with re-designed contacts, better ventilation etc. Plus extra sensors to give 'early warning' of any overheating. They'll also be checking wiring and connections throughout the aeroplane, probably especially the re-charging arrangements.
Hopefully they'll achieve what they've already experienced in tests since the incidents - a series of 'uneventful flights.' Leading eventually to the FAA clearing modified 787s to return to service.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 149, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 14692 times:
Quoting francoflier (Reply 144): The problem is that the exact chain of events which caused the batteries to go suicidal is not precisely understood. Without that knowledge, there is only so much they can do. The only thing to do is to take the best educated guess and work on that basis.
I have no doubt that Boeing's proposal will make the 787 safe to fly, but I fear that this is not the end of the battery issues altogether.
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 what would otherwise be referred to as the "spray and pray" approach to hitting the target! Hopefully, despite their denials, this a really a short-term band-aid and they are actively working on the actual root cause identification and elimination.
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3196 posts, RR: 10 Reply 150, posted (2 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 14613 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 149): Hopefully, despite their denials, this a really a short-term band-aid and they are actively working on the actual root cause identification and elimination.
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 begs the question, raised by Aesma above, as to why Boeing wasn't allowed to extensively fly the prototypes during this time to try and find more about the problem.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
ServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 62 posts, RR: 0 Reply 151, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14421 times:
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 would Boeing be required to induce an in-flight failure to see if the containment and venting system works?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 152, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15033 times:
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 not remove economics as an issue and you can be sure economics weighs about as heavily with airlines as safety does. And by economics I mean restriction to ETOPS-180 (due to a fault tree that assumes the APU won't be available due to a battery failure) and the costs involved in replacing failed batteries.
Also, the NTSB and JTSB are working on the root causes of the two incidents. Once they are found, you can be 100% sure that additional Airworthiness Directives will be made to address those root causes that Boeing will need to integrate.
hivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 153, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14943 times:
Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 151): 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?
Boeing has proposed new battery certification criteria to the FAA and the FAA has accepted those criteria. Boeing now will flight test the modified battery system to see if it meets the approved criteria. In this situation an "eventful" flight test program likely is the last thing Boeing wants to see.
I doubt if Boeing will purposely incenerate a battery in flight to see if the containment works. They probably can test that in a more benign, controlled manner.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4792 posts, RR: 9 Reply 155, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14767 times:
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 generator, to test the containment in flight without danger. Or not, after all they claim that the current design isn't dangerous !
As for the battery we already know that for the original one testing included damaging a cell with nails, and that didn't cause a runaway, so they would have had to find another way.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
hivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 156, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14643 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 155): As for the battery we already know that for the original one testing included damaging a cell with nails, and that didn't cause a runaway, so they would have had to find another way.
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 Boeing press release says:
"The certification plan calls for a series of tests that show how the improved battery system will perform in normal and abnormal conditions. The test plans were written based on the FAA's standards as well as applicable guidelines published by the Radio Technical Commission on Aeronautics (RTCA), an advisory committee that provides recommendations on ways to meet regulatory requirements. The RTCA guidelines were not available when the original 787 battery certification plan was developed."
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9086 posts, RR: 37 Reply 157, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14677 times:
Quoting phxa340 (Reply 154): Commercial flights to start back up in 3-4 weeks according to yahoo.
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 the coming programme of test flights reveal further problems, I'd expect that 787s will be flying in service again by early May.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 158, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 14498 times:
Quoting phxa340 (Reply 154): Commercial flights to start back up in 3-4 weeks according to yahoo.
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 is successfully concluded. Same for the containers.
seahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 159, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 14448 times:
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 787 flying again, as more flights will mean more data on the batteries. I am eagerly waiting to see if the return to flight will be under limitations or if they are going to go back unrestricted.
Kaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2579 posts, RR: 24 Reply 160, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 14371 times:
Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 151): 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?
According to the FAA press release:
The battery system improvements include a redesign of the internal battery components to minimize initiation of a short circuit within the battery, better insulation of the cells and the addition of a new containment and venting system.
BEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 827 posts, RR: 12 Reply 161, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14062 times:
Now that we have some actual news, why did this thread become so quiet?
Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
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 its consequences most of us are waiting to see the final FIX, the repairs and the havoc it must have in future deliveries. This program is really a headache, I hope this is the medicine to put all the delays and problems in the past...
ServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 62 posts, RR: 0 Reply 163, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 14013 times:
Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 161): Now that we have some actual news, why did this thread become so quiet?
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 service. The ball is back in Beoing's court now to prove that the fix will perform as advertised -- that's where the new news will be.
CaptainKramer From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2012, 156 posts, RR: 0 Reply 164, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13785 times:
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 alternate airports available along the route during preflight briefing and during the flight itself, even more so than before.
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5934 posts, RR: 4 Reply 165, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13647 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 155): 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 generator, to test the containment in flight without danger. Or not, after all they claim that the current design isn't dangerous !
As for the battery we already know that for the original one testing included damaging a cell with nails, and that didn't cause a runaway, so they would have had to find another way.
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 differential to help ventilate the compartment!).
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 1983 posts, RR: 10 Reply 166, posted (2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13637 times:
Quoting art (Reply 158): 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 is successfully concluded. Same for the containers.
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 them might already be ready for operational testing.
This article suggests for instance that the improved battery boxes had started mass manufacturing several weeks ago:
Quoting 22 Feb 2013: And, Boeing is already making 100 of 200 ordered battery containment boxes to allow the lithium ion batteries to safely burn up under the cockpit or rear passenger cabin in the event of any more failures like those caused the grounding of the world’s 50 strong 787 Dreamliner fleet in January
Shenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1701 posts, RR: 2 Reply 167, posted (2 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 12945 times:
My understanding is that testing (cert requirements) have already begun, and should be complete next week. Once the testing is complete, Boeing service bulletins will be sent to the FAA for approval (which modifies the airplanes). One SB will replace the battery (and case) and another will install the overboard exhaust system. Other modifications (not FAA mandated) will also be released for installation at the same time.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, RR: 8 Reply 168, posted (2 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 12931 times:
Quoting PW100 (Reply 166): 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 them might already be ready for operational testing.
In addition, has it been released what Boeing actually did / tested on the test flights that were conducted a couple weeks ago?
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, RR: 4 Reply 169, posted (2 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12708 times:
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 165): 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 differential to help ventilate the compartment!).
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 good. Also be a good way to test your writeup of the install procedures for the modification since mistakes can be ironed out on a frame that isn't going to a customer.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2468 posts, RR: 21 Reply 170, posted (2 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 12436 times:
Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 151): 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?
Quoting par13del (Reply 168): In addition, has it been released what Boeing actually did / tested on the test flights that were conducted a couple weeks ago?
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 input that might have spiked .. something that could be theoretically checked by computer or in the lab, but having much more convincing results in the flight envelope.
Interesting in Japanese pitch, the main battery is only used from breaking when under tow (engines off) whereas some posts above seemed to imply it was used for all breaking. the pitch makes no reference to the APU battery being required for the APU controller where I believe it is only required when other electrical sources are not available (engines)
Quote: ...
...
That box “eliminates the possibility of fire,” said Sinnett.
The first layer of improvements is inside the GS Yuasa plant that manufactures the batteries in Japan. Boeing and GS Yuasa have tightened quality controls and added new tests on the batteries that come off the line.
A series of design changes have been made inside the battery, too. These include an electrical insulator wrapped around each of the eight battery cells, to electrically isolate cells from each other and from the battery case, even in the event of one cell’s failure.
Electrical and thermal insulation installed above, below and between the cells will help keep the heat of the cells from affecting each other.
Wire sleeving and the wiring inside the battery will be upgraded to be more resistant to heat and chafing and new self-locking fasteners will attach the metallic bars that connect the eight cells of the battery.
Small holes at the bottom of the battery case that contains the battery cells and the battery management unit will allow moisture to drain away from the battery.
In addition, Boeing is adjusting the battery charger to narrow the acceptable level of charge for the battery. It will both lower the highest charge allowed and raise the lower level allowed for discharge.
The final level of protection is the steel box enclosing everything.
...
“This enclosure keeps us from ever having a fire to begin with,” he said.
...
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3196 posts, RR: 10 Reply 172, posted (2 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 11843 times:
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 opened, creating a constant outboard flow, or will it have a 'dump' valve of some sort?
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9086 posts, RR: 37 Reply 175, posted (2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11221 times:
Thanks for the link, BlueShamu330s. Most interesting, and on the face of it 'convincing.' There's one paragraph that struck me as particularly relevant:-
"We’ve also decided to narrow the acceptable level of charge for the battery, both by lowering the highest charge allowed and raising the lower level allowed for discharge. Two pieces of equipment in the battery system - the battery monitoring unit and the charger— are being redesigned to the narrower definition. The battery charger will also be adapted to soften the charging cycle to put less stress on the battery during charging."
I have to confess that I'm pretty ignorant about electricity! But it HAS often struck me during these discussions that, besides the two incidents that caused the grounding, there've been frequent references to batteries being replaced because of charging problems; or, rather, because an unusually high proportion of them had to be replaced because they couldn't be recharged 'in situ.' It seems at least probable to me that the charging process needs, as Randy puts it, to be 'softened.'
Let's hope that that's the basic problem; and that Boeing's proposals will work, and be accepted by the authorities, and that the 787 will 'return to service' in the relatively near future.
[Edited 2013-03-15 06:41:36]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
hivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 176, posted (2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11100 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 170): Interesting in Japanese pitch, the main battery is only used from breaking when under tow (engines off) whereas some posts above seemed to imply it was used for all breaking
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 are unavailable (RAT loses effctiveness after touch down).
Quoting kanban (Reply 170): the pitch makes no reference to the APU battery being required for the APU controller where I believe it is only required when other electrical sources are not available
See footnote 6 on page 1 of the NTSB interim report: "The APU battery provides power to start an APU during ground and flight operations. The APU controller (discussed in section 1.6.5) monitors the parameters that are needed to operate the APU. The APU controller is powered by the APU battery bus, which receives its power from the APU battery. If the APU battery fails, then the APU battery bus will no longer receive power, and the APU will shut down."
In the "pitch" I don't recall anyone refering to this issue at all.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 177, posted (2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11396 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 175): But it HAS often struck me during these discussions that, besides the two incidents that caused the grounding, there've been frequent references to batteries being replaced because of charging problems; or, rather, because an unusually high proportion of them had to be replaced because they couldn't be recharged 'in situ.' It seems at least probable to me that the charging process needs, as Randy puts it, to be 'softened.'
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 discharge it to prevent the battery from approaching a condition where it could enter thermal runaway.
A deep recharge can also evidently increase the chance of a thermal runaway, so if the battery is run down that deep, it might be a safety measure to have it recharged off the plane. It's also possible that the BCS's existing charging limits (to ensue the battery cannot be too rapidly charged and risk degradation or thermal runaway) are such that it could take too long of a time to re-charge the battery from that discharged state on-board the plane to whatever level is necessary for safety-tree reasons.
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4543 posts, RR: 28 Reply 178, posted (2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11312 times:
Quoting blrsea (Reply 171): Boing now says no fire possible with new changes.
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.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 179, posted (2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11279 times:
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 178): 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.
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 so that is the goal Boeing has to aim for.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 180, posted (2 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 11231 times:
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 178): 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.
I agree. Much better to state the the chances are extremely remote.
Speaking in absolutes is not a good habit, I never do that!
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10471 posts, RR: 20 Reply 181, posted (2 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 11199 times:
Quoting blrsea (Reply 171): That box %u201Celiminates the possibility of fire,%u201D said Sinnett.
Hmmm...
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 178): 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.
Quote:
Through another test, the team demonstrated that fire cannot occur within the new enclosure. Its design eliminates oxygen, making the containment unit self-inerting. Inerting is a step above fire detection and extinguishing as it prevents a fire from ever occurring.
And:
Quote:
During engineering testing, which occurs prior to certification testing, the team demonstrated that the new housing could safely contain a battery failure that included the failure of all eight cells within the battery. The �ultimate� load is the equivalent of 1.5 times the maximum force ever expected to be encountered during a battery failure. The housing easily withstood this pressure and did not fail until the pressure was more than three times the ultimate load.
So it seems the approach is one of belt and suspenders.
Even with this additional description I still don't see how fire is impossible given the fact that the LiIon battery chemicals make their own oxygen, but such tech points are discouraged in this thread, so I'll take them elsewhere.
I agree it's dangerous for high level 787 execs (chief engineer, cheif marketer) to make such absolute statements. They've had incidents occurring at a rate that they didn't predict correctly whose root cause they've been unable to determine, and now making such absolute statements will of course draw notice.
Maybe they are stuck between a rock and a hard place: the company will push them out the door if they don't promote this line of thinking, and of course the company will push them out the door if the line of thinking is proven incorrect?
It all makes me think of the Big Lie theory because such an absolute statement is needed to plant the big lie. Of course I have no way of knowing if this is a lie, I'm saying that if it is a lie such absolute statements are the best way to make it stick.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 182, posted (2 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 11195 times:
Li-Ion batteries do not generate their own oxygen, especially when under thermal runaway.
Independent testing have identified that no significant amount of oxygen is found in cell vent gases. Any internal production of oxygen will affect cell internal reactivity, cell internal temperature, and cell case temperature, but plays no measurable role in the flammability of vent gases.
Boeing themselves noted they could not ignite the electrolyte vapor without adding a supply of external oxygen and even then, the vapor self-extinguised within 200 milliseconds (once it consumed that supply of external oxygen).
So Boeing's new design seems to knock one side out of the Fire Triangle - and a fire needs all three sides to happen.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10471 posts, RR: 20 Reply 183, posted (2 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 11110 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 182): Li-Ion batteries do not generate their own oxygen, especially when under thermal runaway.
Independent testing have identified that no significant amount of oxygen is found in cell vent gases.
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4543 posts, RR: 28 Reply 184, posted (2 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11067 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 179): 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 so that is the goal Boeing has to aim for.
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 drama here on a.net.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 185, posted (2 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11004 times:
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 184): Quoting Stitch (Reply 179):
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 so that is the goal Boeing has to aim for.
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 drama here on a.net.
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). Which is a rate > 0.
Of course 787s are and will be only a small part of that fleet, but if Li-Ion batteries were to become the standard for all aircraft, this is the failure rate that would be implied.
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1598 posts, RR: 4 Reply 186, posted (2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 10868 times:
Quoting francoflier (Reply 172): Anybody has a clue of how the 'overboard exhaust system' will work?
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 presentation linked int he Tech Ops discussion.
Quoting sankaps (Reply 185):
Well, statisticaly that is about one battery fire every 10 years
Ho Hum, 10 years from now we will look at lithium ion battery incident as ordinary as we do with turbine blade failure. Who here would say that as of now, a lithium battery failure (with the proposed design changes) would be worst than a turbine blade failure? Or even a engine surge or heaven forbid, a bird ingestion.
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1598 posts, RR: 4 Reply 187, posted (2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 10864 times:
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 procedure for designing. They are not designing to eliminate failure of the battery or of anything on the airplane for that matter. They are designing to provide a fail safe system where in event of a failure, the plane does not go down. (Similary the TSA don't care if you hurt a passenger with your pocket knife, they know that you and your pocket knife can not bring down the airplane - unless you are Mac Gyver)
This is no different than if you get a failure of a power transformer on the airplane. A transformer failure could be spectacular but as design it would not take down the airplane.
They do not need to know why the transformer, the battery or the pitot tube (ala A330) fail. They just need to demonstrate that in event of such failure, the airplane can make it to an airport safely.
Don't get hang up on the battery, look at the system and see if its sufficient. As for the battery itself, it's a cost analysis. If more battery fail, it's going to cost Boeing lots more money, but would not bring down an airplane. (At least this Engineer seems to be satisfy with the presentation - though who cares what I think
mjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 362 posts, RR: 0 Reply 188, posted (2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10409 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 182): Independent testing have identified that no significant amount of oxygen is found in cell vent gases. Any internal production of oxygen will affect cell internal reactivity, cell internal temperature, and cell case temperature, but plays no measurable role in the flammability of vent gases.
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 oxygen in the vent gas?
When the oxygen is already consumed in the reactions inside the battery we would have to look for CO2 and H20 in the vent gas.
There should be neither H2O (there is no water in lithium ion batteries) nor CO2 without a chemical reaction in the cells, and it calls for a semantic expert if you call it fire or not.
The oxygen produced at a thermal runaway in the ion/lithium cells is not enough to burn of all the available fuel in the cell.
And it is astounding how carefully Boeing spokes people are not mentioning what the electrolyte in the battery cells is, and how careful in that connection they do not mention combination of organic solvent and salt or flammable liquid.
If one would take the PR spin completely serious one should get afraid.
But all the same what the public lawyer vetted statements are saying, one knows that Boeing is working to solve this battery problem and will solve it.
The proposed solution shows that the danger of fire and/or explosion is taken seriously.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 189, posted (2 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10241 times:
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" comments. This testing is step 1. Impact on ETOPS etc will depend on how the tests fare, I would believe. I think most people want the 787 to fly ASAP, and no one seriously expects the program to be cancelled, though a change in battery technology was and is still viewed as a possible final outcome.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10691 posts, RR: 100 Reply 190, posted (2 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9937 times:
Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 174):
Randy kindly explains quite thoroughly the "multiple layers of improvements":
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18871 posts, RR: 64 Reply 191, posted (2 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9919 times:
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 (Dow off 25).
dfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 254 posts, RR: 0 Reply 192, posted (2 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9711 times:
Question about ETOPS impact.
If the new containment basically prevents any battery problem from having catastophic consequences, then why would any ETOPS rating be at risk? The only thing that would eliminate electrical power in that instance is a dual engine out, and isn't the likelihood of that what determines ETOPS?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 193, posted (2 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9700 times:
Quoting dfambro (Reply 192): If the new containment basically prevents any battery problem from having catastophic consequences, then why would any ETOPS rating be at risk?
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 is started, it appears to need the battery to keep running. With an inoperative APU, the 787 is limited to ETOPS-180.
So if APU batteries continue to fail, even if their failure does not impact the safety of the airframe in any way, regulatory agencies would not be able to certify the 787 for ETOPS-240 or ETOPS-330 unless they changed the regulations to allow the plane to fly farther with an inoperative APU battery or APU (once the battery failed and shut down the APU).
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9086 posts, RR: 37 Reply 196, posted (2 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9454 times:
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 actual test flight:-
"Boeing said Friday that it expects to finish testing its battery fix for the 787 within two weeks. Then it will be up to the Federal Aviation Administration to decide when the planes fly again.
"Boeing is testing several changes to the plane's lithium-ion battery aimed at preventing overheating and fire -- conditions that led to the global fleet of 787s being grounded for the past two months.
"Ron Hinderberger, Boeing's vice president for engineering on the 787, said Friday that there will be one flight test. Most tests will be done on the ground, and all should all be done in one to two weeks. "We would like to complete those tests as soon as possible," he said."
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 1804 posts, RR: 6 Reply 197, posted (2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 8688 times:
From the LOT Facebook page:
Quote: The return of the Dreamliners is nigh!
Schedule for 787 repairs was created at Friday's meeting with Boeing representatives. Both our planes have a chance to come back to full functionality as ones of the first among all of the previously grounded aircrafts. This means that the return of the Dreamliners on Polish sky during Summer Season becomes more likely.
Modification of the machines will be carried out in cooperation with a team of Boeing's engineers. Test phase is to be joined by European Aviation Safety Agency, what should speed up the process.
Keep your fingers crossed for the smooth running of the repairs and wait for the next good news! Three more Dreamliners are already packing their bags and getting ready to join our fleet!
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1598 posts, RR: 4 Reply 198, posted (2 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8421 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 196): 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 actual test flight:-
For those not familiar with the testing involved. The flight testing is the last step in the whole certification process other than the paperwork. They are usually not design to flush out any issue. They are really meant to verify that all the testing that was done on the ground is verified (through the collected data) in flight. You would require much more flights if you were to use the flight test to flush out the issues.
Now, not to say that there would be no surprised that may crop up during flight testing. If issues do arise, it would just mean that the umpteenth experts that Boeing brought together are still not smart enough to build the perfect battery
And depending on the severity of the issue they may or may not have to go back to square 1.
RickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 481 posts, RR: 0 Reply 199, posted (2 months 6 days ago) and read 7657 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 196): 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 actual test flight:-
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 seemed to bring it out. I think it will be safe enough to fly with the improvements they have proposed, but the testing does seem to be too limited.
There were two separate events, arguably resulting from different causes. Boeing flew two test flights with the orfginal batteries that were 'uneventful.' Since then, there's been a lot of 're-design' - including more careful manufacture, 'wiring review,' increased insulation, etc. As far as 'short-circuits' or 'over-charging' are concerned, we can be pretty certain that neither Boeing nor the FAA people, after the re-designs, have found any evidence of any problems.
I think we have to trust the expert 'regulators' in this specialist field. Their view appears to be that ground testing is as good as air testing where the 'electrics' are concerned. I don't have the knowledge to challenge that opinion - and I'm also pretty sure that they wouldn't basically have 'cleared' the modified 787, subject to only a couple of air-tests, if they're currently in any doubt at all as to the effectiveness of the re-design?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1598 posts, RR: 4 Reply 201, posted (2 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7480 times:
Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 199): There was plenty of bench testing, but it didn't show up the root cause
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, did they ever pin-point the root cause of the initial failure?
So now with the 787 battery, it will no longer matter how the next battery will fail. The containment system will prevent any failure from causing damage to the airplane or passenger. All the other precautions ultimately will reduce the probability of failure but will not bring it down to zero. It will now become a matter of economics instead of flight safety.
migair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1279 posts, RR: 0 Reply 202, posted (2 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7527 times:
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 lifted....
As far i can read around here it seems that the machine will be operational shortly... i hope they can fix before month end, I know that maybe it´s risky to say but I think the airlines have been very conservatives pulling the B787 out of the schedules all the month of april.... let´s see if the mess can be reduced a bit...
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 203, posted (2 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7438 times:
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 201): Although there was strong theory of what happened to both TWA 800 and AF477, did they ever pin-point the root cause of the initial failure?
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). Processes were changed thereafter.
For AF447, the investigation appears to be drawing very close to what combination of events and actions led to the crash, with the bottom-line "cause" being the FO held the nose pitched up all through the stall., though there were other factors in play as well (such as why does the stall warning turn itself off when the aircraft has very little forward motion -- is that a desirable feature?)
What more do we want? We have nothing similar yet for the what cause the 787 batteries to fail, two of which went up in smoke within days of each other.
hivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 204, posted (2 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7391 times:
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 201): 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, did they ever pin-point the root cause of the initial failure?
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 of AF447, the consensus is that the "root cause" was pitot tubes briefly blocked by ice, but that hardly explains why the plane crashed.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9086 posts, RR: 37 Reply 205, posted (2 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7340 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 203): 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).
Quoting sankaps (Reply 203): For AF447, the investigation appears to be drawing very close to what combination of events and actions led to the crash, with the bottom-line "cause" being the FO held the nose pitched up all through the stall.,
Honestly don't see more than the slightest connection between those 'accidents' and a couple of (much less significant) 787 'incidents'?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10471 posts, RR: 20 Reply 206, posted (2 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7292 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 200): I think we have to trust the expert 'regulators' in this specialist field. Their view appears to be that ground testing is as good as air testing where the 'electrics' are concerned. I don't have the knowledge to challenge that opinion - and I'm also pretty sure that they wouldn't basically have 'cleared' the modified 787, subject to only a couple of air-tests, if they're currently in any doubt at all as to the effectiveness of the re-design?
NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman seems to be skeptical enough of such 'regulators':
Quote:
"Our task now is to see if enough - and appropriate - layers of defense and adequate checks were built into the design, certification and manufacturing of this battery."
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 201): 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, did they ever pin-point the root cause of the initial failure?
These are aircraft with decades of fleet service on them, versus the 787 with, well, not much fleet service on its side, so I don't think it's a good comparison.
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 201): So now with the 787 battery, it will no longer matter how the next battery will fail.
Says the people who said the old battery would not fail...
Not to mention I think it might 'matter' if the next failure happens shortly after return to service, especially on an ETOPS flight. The last thing the program needs is another shot of a 787 parked at an airport with the slides deployed and pax complaining about sore bums after de-bumming the plane.
It'll also be interesting to see if the Japanese regulators, airlines and public feels that the 1.0 flight tests that Boeing and the FAA are saying is adequate is acceptable to them.
hivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 207, posted (2 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7234 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 206): It'll also be interesting to see if the Japanese regulators, airlines and public feels that the 1.0 flight tests that Boeing and the FAA are saying is adequate is acceptable to them.
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 for a.net photographers perhaps?
mjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 362 posts, RR: 0 Reply 208, posted (2 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7135 times:
Quoting hivue (Reply 207): 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 for a.net photographers perhaps?
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.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 209, posted (2 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7094 times:
Quoting hivue (Reply 204): In the case of AF447, the consensus is that the "root cause" was pitot tubes briefly blocked by ice, but that hardly explains why the plane crashed.
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 this are what is much more relevant. Pitot tube icing had happened many times before, and there are procedures to handle it.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 205):
Honestly don't see more than the slightest connection between those 'accidents' and a couple of (much less significant) 787 'incidents'?
I agree. I was just responding to someone bringing these up in the context of "was a root cause found" for these/
Quoting Revelation (Reply 206): These are aircraft with decades of fleet service on them, versus the 787 with, well, not much fleet service on its side, so I don't think it's a good comparison.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9086 posts, RR: 37 Reply 210, posted (2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7083 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 206): NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman seems to be skeptical enough of such 'regulators':
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 that much 'better' than their competitors in any particular way, merely because they're always prepared to 'bet the farm.' That's a form of business that I was fortunate never to be involved in, we never had a 'one to one' rivalry, Boeing v. Airbus.
Toss-up who wins from here. My money's on Boeing - but I'll only offer you odds of about 6:4...........
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Sassiciai From Belgium, joined Jan 2013, 33 posts, RR: 0 Reply 211, posted (2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7070 times:
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 test, but the problem had then been "fixed" according to Boeing).
Perhaps the regulators, the impacted airlines, the a.net community, and even the traveling public are more cautious, and want to see some results from "real" tests, not just the "1.0" test flight referred to above!
I must say that the main recollection (if it is a fact?) I took out of 13 threads about batteries was that the B787 APU cannot function without the APU battery. If that's actually true, it does seem a wee bit weak! Maybe I'll let others brave the 787 ETOPS for a while, and I'll travel on more conservative aircraft.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 212, posted (2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7038 times:
Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 211): Perhaps the regulators, the impacted airlines, the a.net community, and even the traveling public are more cautious, and want to see some results from "real" tests, not just the "1.0" test flight referred to above!
If they did, one would expect Boeing would accommodate them.
Flight testing can have too many uncontrolled variables to serve as an effective testing platform. The laboratory eliminates those variables, allowing for testing with consistent, reproducible results. You can also do extreme testing in the lab that you cannot safely perform in-flight.
Where flight testing is effective is to verify the venting system works as designed as well as test whatever failure tree of that system entails. For example, if the vent doesn't open, does smoke / smell exit containment? If it does, can the EE bay successfully evacuate it? If the answer to that is "yes", then there is no real need to keep testing it since one can expect each subsequent testing event to give the same result. And if it didn't, that would be because of one of those uncontrolled variables - an "unknown unknown". And since by definition an "unknown unknown" is unknown and Boeing does not have psychics on staff with the power of prescience, they can't create a multi-flight test plan to take those "unknown unknown" variables into account.
Sassiciai From Belgium, joined Jan 2013, 33 posts, RR: 0 Reply 213, posted (2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7012 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 210): I've admired Boeing for years - not because they're that much 'better' than their competitors in any particular way, merely because they're always prepared to 'bet the farm.' That's a form of business that I was fortunate never to be involved in, we never had a 'one to one' rivalry, Boeing v. Airbus.
Toss-up who wins from here. My money's on Boeing - but I'll only offer you odds of about 6:4...........
We are talking about major international aircraft manufacturing companies. You make it sound like two horses riding around some field with obstacles that will sooner or later trip up one of them! Two major companies - announcing this week alone orders for their products in the hundreds - to supply the needs to the global airline industry!
A and B have strong products in general (current problems not-withstanding) and to rub your hands in glee at one "overcoming" the other is, well, childish! I wish there was a third company of the same stature as Airbus and Boeing, that's better for competition. No room for a third? When A has a backlog of more than 6 years of production for an aircraft yet to EIS, with Boeing not far behind? Bulging order books for 787/350?
What a grim world it would be if your scenario came about, that one of A or B folded!
Kaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2579 posts, RR: 24 Reply 214, posted (2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6976 times:
Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 211): I must say that the main recollection (if it is a fact?) I took out of 13 threads about batteries was that the B787 APU cannot function without the APU battery. If that's actually true, it does seem a wee bit weak! Maybe I'll let others brave the 787 ETOPS for a while, and I'll travel on more conservative aircraft.
Then you'd better stay away from 777s as well - same "issue".
Sassiciai From Belgium, joined Jan 2013, 33 posts, RR: 0 Reply 215, posted (2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6973 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 212): Flight testing can have too many uncontrolled variables to serve as an effective testing platform. The laboratory eliminates those variables, allowing for testing with consistent, reproducible results. You can also do extreme testing in the lab that you cannot safely perform in-flight.
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 numbers, breathing, expelling Co2, and going to the bathroom. 250 passengers instead of 12 test engineers/flight crew. Plus all the galley effects (heat, moisture, electric drain, ...) of heating meals for the 250! Plus the timetable pressure to turn around and go. So "real world" has an extra dimension that sterile test flights do not!
As I said earlier, the events that lead to the grounding happened on revenue services!
Maybe Boeing needs to organise some simulated airline flights with near-100% load factors - and use a.net to find the passenger volunteers!
frmrcapcadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1501 posts, RR: 1 Reply 216, posted (2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6935 times:
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 rugged. A long term fix likely would be a redesigned battery (esp chemistry), so that a lighter less rugged battery assembely is equally safe. I suspect we will see both, the later obviously some time from now.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
justloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 872 posts, RR: 1 Reply 217, posted (2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6946 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 212): Flight testing can have too many uncontrolled variables to serve as an effective testing platform. The laboratory eliminates those variables, allowing for testing with consistent, reproducible results. You can also do extreme testing in the lab that you cannot safely perform in-flight.
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, there isn't much more to test. Time to fly.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 218, posted (2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6967 times:
Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 215): The long earlier threads did touch on the fact that real airline flights are not the same as test flights..."real world" has an extra dimension that sterile test flights do not!
Maybe Boeing needs to organise some simulated airline flights with near-100% load factors - and use a.net to find the passenger volunteers!
Boeing did perform test and certification flights on I believe ZA003 with a cabin outfitted and "passengers" (Boeing employees) aboard to test those systems and the batteries did not enter thermal runaway during those tests. Which makes sense, as the ovens, lavatories, IFE and such are not powered by the batteries...
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3196 posts, RR: 10 Reply 219, posted (2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6943 times:
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 201): It will now become a matter of economics instead of flight safety.
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 one to die like proverbial vultures...
Even if it's a 'no mess' affair.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
Sassiciai From Belgium, joined Jan 2013, 33 posts, RR: 0 Reply 220, posted (2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6945 times:
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 214): Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 211):
I must say that the main recollection (if it is a fact?) I took out of 13 threads about batteries was that the B787 APU cannot function without the APU battery. If that's actually true, it does seem a wee bit weak! Maybe I'll let others brave the 787 ETOPS for a while, and I'll travel on more conservative aircraft.
Then you'd better stay away from 777s as well - same "issue".
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 to need a battery all the time to run the APU - is that really normal?
I already do try to avoid the 777 when I can - it's just so much more noisy that anything else IMHO. Now if it's APU is also 100% dependent on a operating battery, ......
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 221, posted (2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6909 times:
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 214): Then you'd better stay away from 777s as well - same "issue".
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 what was described in the earlier threads, it appears the 787 APU battery, if it goes fizz, requires the APU to vent its effluents. But the APU cannot function with the battery on the fizz, so the effluents cannot be vented. I believe this circular dependency is why it is an issue on the 787 and not the 777
Sassiciai From Belgium, joined Jan 2013, 33 posts, RR: 0 Reply 222, posted (2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6891 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 218): Boeing did perform test and certification flights on I believe ZA003 with a cabin outfitted and "passengers" (Boeing employees) aboard to test those systems and the batteries did not enter thermal runaway during those tests. Which makes sense, as the ovens, lavatories, IFE and such are not powered by the batteries...
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 behaved differently from those on the Boeing test flight!
In absence of any clear and reliable root cause for the 787 battery issues, let's not rule anything out. Again, the ANA and JAL events were on airline service flights, unlike 100% of the test flights!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 223, posted (2 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6879 times:
Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 222): But the batteries on the ANA flight behaved differently from those on the Boeing test flight!
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 Yamaguchi Ube on 15 January 2013. One assumes all those flights had passengers aboard and those passengers received the same onboard services that those aboard NH692 did on that January day. As such, I am of the opinion that the presence of passengers and their usage of services are unlikely to be directly-related to the root cause of whatever caused the battery event that day and therefore investigatory and testing resources should be focused elsewhere.
Sassiciai From Belgium, joined Jan 2013, 33 posts, RR: 0 Reply 224, posted (2 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6894 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 223): Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 222):
But the batteries on the ANA flight behaved differently from those on the Boeing test flight!
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 Yamaguchi Ube on 15 January 2013. One assumes all those flights had passengers aboard and those passengers received the same onboard services that those aboard NH692 did on that January day. As such, I am of the opinion that the presence of passengers and their usage of services are unlikely to be directly-related to the root cause of whatever caused the battery event that day and therefore investigatory and testing resources should be focused elsewhere.
[Edited 2013-03-19 09:55:16]
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 all sorts of latest technology gizmos, and we still have no clear explanation.
There was an accident many decades ago, a BEA Vanguard lost its tail over Belgium, and nose-dived into Flanders! It was eventually traced to the effect of urine in the rear toilets over 20 years, rotting the underlying structure of the aircraft. This had never been recognised before, if I'm right!
I'm certainly not claiming any such similar effect in the 787 case - just we shouldn't rule out things that don't fit into our comfort zones, where as technicians, we don't want to believe it's possible! 250 people inside an aircraft for a long period can induce things the testers never thought about!
Sponsor Message: 
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11318 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6439 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2515 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9086 posts, 
From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 481 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, 
From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 146 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4149 posts, 
From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 395 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4792 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2005, 102 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2579 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2010, 62 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, 
From Poland, joined May 2007, 1588 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Jan 2013, 8 posts, 
From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2331 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4976 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1008 posts, 
Hopefully, despite their denials, this a really a short-term band-aid and they are actively working on the actual root cause identification and elimination.
From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1699 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2012, 156 posts, 
From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 362 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1279 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Jan 2013, 33 posts,