Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Grounds B787: Part 13  
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 34746 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Link to thread 12 FAA Grounds 787 Part #12 (by 777er Mar 1 2013 in Civil Aviation)

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.

277 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7081 posts, RR: 57
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 34759 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.

[Edited 2013-03-09 01:13:27]


The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2865 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 34671 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... :-(
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 34448 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."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/bu...rs-approval.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 34322 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)

User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 783 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 34157 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.


User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2865 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 34065 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... :-(
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 33743 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.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7081 posts, RR: 57
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 33714 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.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 33607 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 33570 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?


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 33533 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.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7081 posts, RR: 57
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 33471 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Maybe they just don't have any "real" updates to give until they get ZA005 back into the air and start testing?

So, why the spin that has plagued this aircraft since the days of home depot fasteners.

Why then is Ray Conner stating he expects approval of 787 fix in 'weeks, not months' , and how he looking forward to a vacation - bless.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 33176 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7081 posts, RR: 57
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 32665 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
Maybe because it works?

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.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3392 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 32642 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7081 posts, RR: 57
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 32557 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.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 32306 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 32151 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 13):
I frankly have not seen much Boeing bashing

Boeings proposal

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 18):
I'm asking for Boeing to state facts.

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.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7081 posts, RR: 57
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 32050 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.

So, why are Boeing out spinning like crazy?

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...-has-some-figuring-out-to-explain/

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...ported-ready-to-fly-with-fire-box/



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 31890 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".


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3392 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 31669 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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..


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7081 posts, RR: 57
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 31628 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 23):
We have developed a society that believes everything should be instant public knowledge..
I AGREE WITH YOU.


I want Boeing to stop the spin.



Quoting kanban (Reply 23):
yet quote some blog as an authentic release when in fact it's just another outsider with a big ego's opinion.

Where did I state that what I linked to was an 'authentic release'?

It was someone else picking up on the spin machine in Boeing.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 31676 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.  


User currently offlinelollomz From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 256 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 31638 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well, at least we will have a summer full of good old B767s !!!  

User currently offlineLJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 31442 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.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 783 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 30938 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 21):
So, why are Boeing out spinning like crazy?

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.


User currently offlinesolarflyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 990 posts, RR: 3
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 30964 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.


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 30875 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.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6530 posts, RR: 9
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 30716 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3):
Looks increasingly likely that further flight tests will start next week:-

Last week it was already "next week".



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5001 posts, RR: 28
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 30773 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.


I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineWisdom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 30663 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.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 30618 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.

[Edited 2013-03-09 15:57:43]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 30567 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

[Edited 2013-03-09 16:05:47]

User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2865 posts, RR: 25
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 30347 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... :-(
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19414 posts, RR: 58
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 29643 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.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3392 posts, RR: 26
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 29534 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

All a/c delivered were sold not leased.

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 29562 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 29500 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?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 29562 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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).

[Edited 2013-03-09 18:43:48]

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19414 posts, RR: 58
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 29455 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.


User currently offlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 882 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 29455 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.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 29504 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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...  Wink
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.

[Edited 2013-03-09 19:16:28]

User currently offlinethorntot From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 52 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 29408 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?



Work Hard. Fly Right. Fly United.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 29381 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.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 29275 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.


User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 29211 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.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 28942 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



BV
User currently offlinemaxter From Australia, joined May 2009, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 28179 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.

[Edited 2013-03-09 23:12:17]


maxter
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7081 posts, RR: 57
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 28056 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
Boeing's stock is at a 52-week high.

Its actually a three year high.

Quoting cornutt (Reply 46):
people that I suspect are working for short-sellers, using social media to try to drive down the stock price.

Amazing the power these guy's don't have.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 977 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 27406 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.


User currently offlineZKOKQ From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 27242 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.

What could McNerney done to fix this?


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 27324 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.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 27318 times:

There are def Four AI B787s parked at Old Airport at VABB.......Dust is accumulating over them fast.

[Edited 2013-03-10 03:37:08]


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2076 posts, RR: 4
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 27139 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 53):
There are def Four AI B787s parked at Old Airport at VABB.......Dust is accumulating over them fast.

I wonder how they will look like, if they have to stand there for nearly a year.



Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlineLJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 27135 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?

[Edited 2013-03-10 04:49:19]

User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2950 posts, RR: 28
Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 26900 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 30):
I am hearing 6 months to a year before this bird gets close to flying again.
Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 45):
I am hearing 6 months to a year before this bird gets close to flying again.

Hearing from?



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3392 posts, RR: 26
Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 26298 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1057 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 26283 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.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 59, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 26240 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offline14ccKemiskt From Sweden, joined Nov 2010, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 25915 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?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 61, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 25934 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24891 posts, RR: 22
Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 25787 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.


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1057 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 25695 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.


User currently offlinePanAmPaul From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 25587 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.

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 25447 times:

Apologies if this has been posted before (I did not see it), but an interesting write-up on BCA head Ray Conner here at http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/n...ng-787-grounding-the.html?page=all .

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.


User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1124 posts, RR: 13
Reply 66, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 25214 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.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1448 posts, RR: 17
Reply 67, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 25142 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.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 68, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 25135 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.



BV
User currently offline14ccKemiskt From Sweden, joined Nov 2010, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 24997 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.


User currently offlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 882 posts, RR: 1
Reply 70, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 24974 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.


User currently offlineWisdom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 71, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 24911 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.


User currently offlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 882 posts, RR: 1
Reply 72, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 24889 times:

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 71):
It's too early to tell.

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  


User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3361 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 24869 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.


User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1124 posts, RR: 13
Reply 74, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 24818 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.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1057 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 24750 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.


User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 76, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 24747 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.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 783 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 24811 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.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 78, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 24753 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.



BV
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2213 posts, RR: 5
Reply 79, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 24523 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...


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19414 posts, RR: 58
Reply 80, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 24405 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.


User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 977 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 24389 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.


User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1448 posts, RR: 17
Reply 82, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 23915 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.


User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2195 posts, RR: 25
Reply 83, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 23666 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 80):
This is truly unprecedented AFAIK in all of commercial aviation history.

Before making outlandish claims like this, go and read up on the De Haviland Comet's developement. Much worse.



UNITED We Stand
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 84, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 23471 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 85, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 23431 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.


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1057 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 23275 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.


User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1448 posts, RR: 17
Reply 87, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 23334 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ost-15m-in-january-revenue-381692/

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.


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 23246 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.


User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2195 posts, RR: 25
Reply 89, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 23276 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.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1448 posts, RR: 17
Reply 90, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 23199 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.


User currently offlinejbcarioca From Brazil, joined Jan 2013, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 23117 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.


User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1124 posts, RR: 13
Reply 92, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 23076 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...



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 93, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 23013 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.


User currently offlinePacNWjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 963 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 23009 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.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 95, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 22856 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.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 96, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 22845 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

User currently offline14ccKemiskt From Sweden, joined Nov 2010, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 22776 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.


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 22750 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?

[Edited 2013-03-11 09:28:44]

[Edited 2013-03-11 09:29:29]

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3392 posts, RR: 26
Reply 99, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 22743 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 100, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 22721 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2950 posts, RR: 28
Reply 101, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 22701 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 85):
humongous Li-Ion batteries

Huh??? They're about the same size as a car battery.

This kind of hyperbole is why many knowledgeable posters have abandoned these threads.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 102, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 22818 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.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 103, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 22812 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.


User currently offline14ccKemiskt From Sweden, joined Nov 2010, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 22833 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).

http://www.b737.org.uk/sales.htm


User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2195 posts, RR: 25
Reply 105, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 22795 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.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2865 posts, RR: 25
Reply 106, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 22782 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... :-(
User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1057 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 22798 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.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3392 posts, RR: 26
Reply 108, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 22752 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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


User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2865 posts, RR: 25
Reply 109, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 22729 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... :-(
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2755 posts, RR: 2
Reply 110, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 22767 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!



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 111, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 22509 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 112, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 22069 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.

Edit to add link: http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowat...-has-permanent-fix-for-dreamliner/

[Edited 2013-03-11 13:28:53]


International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2865 posts, RR: 25
Reply 113, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 21887 times:

It's time to bow out of all threads Dreamliner.

Editing and deletions are skewing the discussion out of all true context.

US based forum, discussing a US company's problems; impartiality seriously compromised.

It's a shame because, ultimately, we're all after answers and seeing that aircraft fly again.

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2950 posts, RR: 28
Reply 114, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 21195 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.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 115, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 21087 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.


User currently offline14ccKemiskt From Sweden, joined Nov 2010, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 21066 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 129):

Best summary in at least 5 threads. Seems like a very plausible scenario indeed!


User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 117, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 21020 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.


User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 118, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks ago) and read 20866 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.


User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 977 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 20109 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.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 120, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 19277 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.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 121, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 18515 times:

ISTAT update: the FAA has approved Boeing's plan to fix the 787. Starts with flight testing.

[Edited 2013-03-12 13:37:39]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 122, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 18495 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 129):
FAA approves Boeing 787 proposed battery re-certification plan.

Great news!

FAA approves Boeing’s program to tackle 787 problems

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.”




[Edited 2013-03-12 13:48:34]


International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7220 posts, RR: 17
Reply 123, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 18463 times:

Just broke the news on Fox. So when are we gonna see her flying again?   


One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 124, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 18438 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has some info, including the FAA Press Release.



Quoting PHX787 (Reply 131):
Just broke the news on Fox. So when are we gonna see her flying again?  hyper   



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".

[Edited 2013-03-12 14:02:49]

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 125, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 18338 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.

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 126, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 18326 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./



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2950 posts, RR: 28
Reply 127, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 18458 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.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 128, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 18416 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 135):
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.

"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.”

More at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/bu...ng-plan-for-battery-test.html?_r=0

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."



Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/bo...-battery-4348955.php#ixzz2NMXzOmBD

So what is approved is the test plan, and not the proposed fix itself yet until it passes the tests.

[Edited 2013-03-12 14:21:18]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 129, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 18427 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 134):
ZA006 is in change incorporation and ZA004 is missing its engines, but that last one should not be a problem.

Found it: Boeing says it will use ZA005 and LN86 for FAA flight tests.

LN86 = SP-LRC for LOT.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7220 posts, RR: 17
Reply 130, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 18223 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 132):
Probably not anytime soon.

I knew as much, I was just hoping to get a potential timeframe.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2950 posts, RR: 28
Reply 131, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 18263 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.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 132, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 18161 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.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1302 posts, RR: 3
Reply 133, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 17925 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
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7220 posts, RR: 17
Reply 134, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 17892 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.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinePanAmPaul From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 17751 times:

Not sure if this was posted...

Boeing Gets FAA Approval for Certification Plan for Dreamliner Battery Solution

"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..


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 136, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 17490 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.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 137, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 17449 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.


User currently offlineDan23 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 138, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 17389 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.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2619


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.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6530 posts, RR: 9
Reply 139, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 17338 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
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 783 posts, RR: 0
Reply 140, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17281 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.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1302 posts, RR: 3
Reply 141, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 16814 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
User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2076 posts, RR: 4
Reply 142, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 16677 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!  

[Edited 2013-03-13 02:42:11]


Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2865 posts, RR: 25
Reply 143, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 16536 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... :-(
User currently onlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3738 posts, RR: 11
Reply 144, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 16524 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...
User currently offline14ccKemiskt From Sweden, joined Nov 2010, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 145, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 16376 times:

The delivered 50 planes, do they have to be rebuilt in Seattle or can they be fixed where they are?

User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13040 posts, RR: 12
Reply 146, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 16365 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.

User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 147, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 16339 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?

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 148, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 16281 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
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 149, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 16243 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.


User currently onlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3738 posts, RR: 11
Reply 150, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 16164 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...
User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 151, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15972 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?

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 152, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 16584 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

[Edited 2013-03-13 07:05:28]

User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1057 posts, RR: 0
Reply 153, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 16494 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.

[Edited 2013-03-13 07:19:15]

User currently offlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 882 posts, RR: 1
Reply 154, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 16371 times:

Commercial flights to start back up in 3-4 weeks according to yahoo.

Http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...ng-investors-can-look-skyward.aspx


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6530 posts, RR: 9
Reply 155, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 16318 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
User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1057 posts, RR: 0
Reply 156, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 16194 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."

[Edited 2013-03-13 09:40:44]

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 157, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 16228 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
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 158, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 16049 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.


User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 977 posts, RR: 0
Reply 159, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 15999 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.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2950 posts, RR: 28
Reply 160, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 15922 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.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 947 posts, RR: 18
Reply 161, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 15613 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Now that we have some actual news, why did this thread become so quiet?


FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
User currently onlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2192 posts, RR: 8
Reply 162, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 15561 times:

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 161):

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...



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 163, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 15564 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.


User currently offlineCaptainKramer From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2012, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 164, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15336 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.

[Edited 2013-03-13 12:58:12]

User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6346 posts, RR: 3
Reply 165, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15198 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 :-)
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2371 posts, RR: 11
Reply 166, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15188 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
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...n-dome-boxes/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1710 posts, RR: 2