Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Grounds B787: Part 14  
User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11368 posts, RR: 59
Posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 42778 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

As the previous one become too big, we are opening a new thread for discussions

Link to thread 13 : FAA Grounds B787: Part 13 (by 777ER Mar 9 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



Enjoy the website


New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
275 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinebellancacf From United States of America, joined May 2011, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 42566 times:

Did any test flights take place?

User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1322 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 42402 times:

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 1):
Did any test flights take place?

Not yet.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 42182 times:

SP-LRC was deiced yesterday but did not fly.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/microvolt/8581796192/in/photostream



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineblrsea From India, joined May 2005, 1393 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 42001 times:

Experts weigh in on Boeing's solution. Looks like external experts are satisfied with Boeing's proposed solution. Also reports on the tests conducted so far.

787 battery fix gets thumbs up from aviation experts

Quote:

...
Independent experts view the fail-safe part of Boeing’s proposed 787 Dreamliner fix — a heavy stainless steel box that will contain any heat, flames or flammable vapors from the lithium ion battery — as a solid solution.
...
But to John Goglia, a former member of the National Transportation Safety Board and now an outspoken critic of the FAA and Boeing, it’s this box that makes Boeing’s solution acceptable.

“No matter what happens to the battery now, it won’t be a problem because it’s contained,” Goglia said. “It’ll probably satisfy the FAA to get the airplane back in the sky.”
...
...
Other tests are more severe, including one lab test that involves igniting propane inside the containment box, causing an explosion that increases the pressure to three times what could be expected in the worst-case scenario.

Boeing has already done a successful run-through of this test. A video shows the 1/8th-inch-thick steel walls of the box bulge out in slow motion. But they hold fast and regain their shape.
...
...
“It’s easy to calculate the amount of energy in the battery and it’s easy to calculate the amount of energy the box can absorb,” said Janicki. “Mathematically, to know whether it will work is a fairly precise science.”

An aviation-safety engineer, who asked for anonymity because he spoke without the approval of his employer (not Boeing), agreed that the proposed battery fix “looks pretty good.”

Though he’s critical of how the FAA appears to have rubber-stamped Boeing’s original battery design, he said the revised battery system should be approved and certified to fly.
...
..
He said the fix, which adds 150 pounds to the weight of the airplane — more than doubling the weight of the two main batteries involved — completely negates the weight savings that had been expected from using lithium ion instead of nickel cadmium batteries.
...
...


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1493 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 41490 times:

Quoting blrsea (Reply 4):
Independent experts view the fail-safe part of Boeing’s proposed 787 Dreamliner fix — a heavy stainless steel box that will contain any heat, flames or flammable vapors from the lithium ion battery — as a solid solution.

So the box will contain any failure - but it doesn't sound like this fix gets to the issue as to why the batteries overheated in the first place, does it? The original batteries from what I read were failing at a high rate -- what is or has been done to correct that problem? I'm sure the airlines don't want to be replacing these batteries every few months.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3221 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 41400 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
The original batteries from what I read were failing at a high rate --

depends on what you call failing.. As I recall of those removed (and called failures by some) 90% were because that had been drawn down to a point where they were locked out for recharging on the plane. the causes were predominately ramps/cleaning crews using battery power instead of ground power.. because a seriously drawn down battery is more unstable than one discharged in normal use, it must be removed to recharge and reset the limiters. There was a breakdown of the other 10% however I don't recall what they were


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 41333 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
but it doesn't sound like this fix gets to the issue as to why the batteries overheated in the first place, does it? The original batteries from what I read were failing at a high rate -- what is or has been done to correct that problem?

As I understand it, JAAlbert, the overheating (just the two incidents so far) is thought to have been caused by 'spreading' short-circuits due to the cells being too close together and uncontained. Boeing and Yuasa have therefore moved the cells further apart, and also added insulation etc. between them.

As far as I know, all previous failures (and I agree that there were a lot of them) occurred on the ground; and the problem was that some batteries could not be recharged 'in situ' and therefore had to be replaced; not a matter of fires etc.. The proposal there appears to be to adjust the appropriate recharging rates and also the levels to which the batteries discharge and recharge; I don't know enough physics fully to understand that, but get the impression that it's mainly a matter of 'calming everything down.' All wiring arrangements etc. have also been reviewed.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29709 posts, RR: 84
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 41055 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
So the box will contain any failure - but it doesn't sound like this fix gets to the issue as to why the batteries overheated in the first place, does it?

No, because why they overheated in the first place isn't known. Rather than keep the fleet grounded until a final cause is determined, this new box will allow any failure to be tolerated in the interim. Once a cause is found, additional remediation will be taken to prevent or reduce the chances of it happening again.



Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
The original batteries from what I read were failing at a high rate -- what is or has been done to correct that problem?

The maximum discharge level is being raised to a level that allows the batteries to still be charged aboard the plane if that level is reached.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12444 posts, RR: 100
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 40620 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Once a cause is found, additional remediation will be taken to prevent or reduce the chances of it happening again.

To expand, Boeing has also reduced the chance of a battery fire by:
1. Reducing how much the battery may be drained and still recharged on aircraft
2. Reducing how much the battery may be charged (in effect, really cutting back on the number of watt hours that battery may put out)
3. Reducing the battery charge harshness. (I assume by slowing the charge and putting a ramp up or other means into the battery charging profile.)

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
The maximum discharge level

One of three steps.   I know you knew, but I felt your post needed to be expanded upon. Each of the above reduces the chance of a battery fire. The three in combination are belts, suspenders, and an elastic waist in combo.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 39874 times:

I hope for the airlines that this will be OK for FAA but not as a final solution. First treat the illness, then develop a remedy, that should be a logical path.

However many here think that this is the final solution, I don´t think even B is satisfied by flying with unknown causes in its batteries. However to redo chemistry and get that tested, accepted and certified would take too long for the airlines to accept. Just do this interim and aim to remake over time and that update should be free of charge to any airline flying the 787. That way it will keep flying and finally have a better cell chemistry in the end.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 39521 times:

Pretty informative (and up-to-date) press article here:-

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/AW_03_25_2013_p35-561498.xml&p=1



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3613 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 39483 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
I'm sure the airlines don't want to be replacing these batteries every few months.

Especially now that it has become a lot more complicated to do a battery swap...

Is there any word on whether this will affect ETOPS capability yet?

The safety issue is pretty much taken care of, but the battery reliability issue is still an unknown.
If I understood correctly, these batteries are critical ETOPS items.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 39415 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 11):
Pretty informative (and up-to-date) press article here:-

Quote:
New details of the redesigned battery system also reveal why Boeing has remained confident of FAA approval for the fix. The battery enclosure, which is designed to prevent a fire erupting rather than simply containing it, is made of 0.125-in.-thick stainless steel. A 1-in.-dia. titanium vent pipe connects the back of the enclosure to the outer skin of the aircraft where new exit holes—one for each battery—will be cut through the composite skin. The vent pipe is designed to evacuate vaporized electrolytes from the battery should any, or all, of the eight cells in the unit fail. In the event of a cell failure, a small pressure port in the rear of the enclosure is designed to rupture under pressure from the building vapor. The vapor will then exit the aircraft via the vent pipe.

Interesting stuff. Earlier posts here suggested that new holes in the fuselage weren't the best option.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12050 posts, RR: 47
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 39191 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 10):
However many here think that this is the final solution

Maybe because Boeing has indicated as much?



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1022 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 39040 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 14):
Quoting sweair (Reply 10):
However many here think that this is the final solution

Maybe because Boeing has indicated as much?

Actually, I believe that Boeing will change to Titanium boxes in the future instead of 1/8" SS before they change the battery chemistry.

That would probably allow a wight reduction in the box by at least 1/2.

For now (and as an immediate fix), SS was readily available in sufficient quantities and is very easily fabricated. Titanium needs to have better scheduling of material availability (especially certain alloys) and can have fabrication challenges that take some time to perfect the best way.

Note that Boeing used Titanium tubing for the vent pipe which I believes provides a clue to how important weight is. Such tubing in several alloys is readily available. So is SS tubing - which would work as well (but weighs more).

Have a great day,


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2821 posts, RR: 27
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 38014 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 11):
Pretty informative (and up-to-date) press article here:-

Not so up to date. The full details were actually made public by Boeing 10 days ago.

http://787updates.newairplane.com/Bo...-solution-presentation-English.pdf

[Edited 2013-03-24 07:44:23]


Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29709 posts, RR: 84
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 37828 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting francoflier (Reply 12):
Is there any word on whether this will affect ETOPS capability yet?

ETOPS-180 should be unaffected by these issues since you can depart with an inoperative APU battery and/or an inoperative APU. So regardless of the failure rate of the APU batteries, the 787 should still meet the requirements for ETOPS-180 operation.

The 787 has yet to be certified for ETOPS-240 or ETOPS-330. In order to attain such certification, either the failure rate of the APU battery will have to be at or below whatever the requirements is or Boeing will have to modify the APU system design so that the APU can be started and operated without the APU battery.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2821 posts, RR: 27
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 37788 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
Boeing will have to modify the APU system design so that the APU can be started and operated without the APU battery.

Or perhaps just operated - I haven't looked at ETOPS requirements for a while, but I believe there are some MEL configurations that require continuous APU operation (i.e. started on the ground).



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 37760 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 16):
The full details were actually made public by Boeing 10 days ago.

Drilling additional holes in the fuselage is a new detail not disclosed in the Boeing presentation (at least not blatantly apparent).



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineblrsea From India, joined May 2005, 1393 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 37744 times:

How different is it in drilling holes in CFRP fuselage compared to aluminium ones? Will it have any effect on the CFRP strength?

User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3613 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 37741 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):

Thanks!



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29709 posts, RR: 84
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 37704 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting blrsea (Reply 20):
How different is it in drilling holes in CFRP fuselage compared to aluminium ones? Will it have any effect on the CFRP strength?

There are already plenty of holes and ducts in the structure, so that should not be an issue.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 37700 times:

Quoting blrsea (Reply 20):
How different is it in drilling holes in CFRP fuselage compared to aluminium ones?

B787 Grounding: Tech/ops Thread Part 2 (by 777ER Mar 9 2013 in Tech Ops)

Quote:
For a hole in the 787, even if you use the sharpest cutting tool, you will always expect cracks and micro delamination at the cut edges. Sealing will prevent moisture from getting into the crack (and freeze causing additional delamination). However, most likely they will put some sort of bolted and/or bonded doubler around the cutout so any crack growth would be arrested by the bolt clamp-up.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1322 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 37686 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 18):
Or perhaps just operated - I haven't looked at ETOPS requirements for a while, but I believe there are some MEL configurations that require continuous APU operation (i.e. started on the ground).

That is true, however, I believe it was stated in a previous thread (somewhere) that Mike Sinnett indicated loss of the APU battery would cause the APU to shut down, so that appearss not to be an option.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2821 posts, RR: 27
Reply 25, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 38132 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 19):

Drilling additional holes in the fuselage is a new detail not disclosed in the Boeing presentation (at least not blatantly apparent).

Slide 15: "dedicated vent line"

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 23):
For a hole in the 787, even if you use the sharpest cutting tool, you will always expect cracks and micro delamination at the cut edges. Sealing will prevent moisture from getting into the crack (and freeze causing additional delamination). However, most likely they will put some sort of bolted and/or bonded doubler around the cutout so any crack growth would be arrested by the bolt clamp-up.

The answer is in TechOps thread one (Tom) - titanium doublers.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 26, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 38116 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 25):
Slide 15: "dedicated vent line"

Yes, I saw that, but to me, as a layman, it doesn't say whether that's a new hole or repurposing what already exists.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2821 posts, RR: 27
Reply 27, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 38429 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 27):

Presumably if you repurposed an existing vent, you'd need to cut a new vent for whatever was there before.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 24):
That is true, however, I believe it was stated in a previous thread (somewhere) that Mike Sinnett indicated loss of the APU battery would cause the APU to shut down, so that appearss not to be an option.

Perhaps I didn't word my response very clearly. Stitch suggested that the electrical system might eventually need to be modified for ETOPS 180+ so that the APU can be "started and operated" without the APU battery. I was suggesting that "operated" might be enough for some ETOPS requirements (i.e. those where the APU runs the whole time). That would require another source of power for the APU controller, which apparently runs off the APU battery bus.

However, I'm wondering if something Sinnett and/or the NTSB said got misinterpreted. It seems odd to me that there would be redundant ways of starting the APU other than the APU battery, but they're useless without the battery because it alone supplies the APU controller.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 28, posted (1 year 1 month 21 hours ago) and read 37677 times:

Looks like some 'hard news' about the flight test at last:-

"Boeing is on the verge of flight testing the modified 787 battery system changes on Line Number 86, an aircraft destined for LOT Polish Airlines. The aircraft is set to undergo a final pre-flight ground test in the afternoon (Pacific time), at Paine Field, Everett on 24th, and if all goes to plan could be cleared for a standard ‘B2’ profile, customer acceptance type flight test on March 25."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...1731f4-1598-4e70-89c5-c0edf1740593



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1322 posts, RR: 8
Reply 29, posted (1 year 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 37559 times:

I'm sure Mr Norris has some good conections at Boeing but I doubt we'll see a customer acceptance flight on ZA272 Monday.

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 30, posted (1 year 1 month 17 hours ago) and read 37271 times:

I read it as LN86 will fly a customer acceptance flight profile but that doesn't mean it's an acceptance flight.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6744 posts, RR: 8
Reply 31, posted (1 year 1 month 14 hours ago) and read 37040 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 29):
I'm sure Mr Norris has some good conections at Boeing but I doubt we'll see a customer acceptance flight on ZA272 Monday.

I take the same position as the post below.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 30):
I read it as LN86 will fly a customer acceptance flight profile but that doesn't mean it's an acceptance flight.

Just in case, the line from the article is listed below.
"at Paine Field, Everett on 24th, and if all goes to plan could be cleared for a standard ‘B2’ profile, customer acceptance type flight test on March 25."


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1322 posts, RR: 8
Reply 32, posted (1 year 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 36572 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 30):
I read it as LN86 will fly a customer acceptance flight profile but that doesn't mean it's an acceptance flight.

It's only a customer acceptance profile if the the customer is on board. Some follow the Boeing B-1 profile some don't, so which customer profile will they fly. And there is no such thing as a "standard 'B2' profile" -- a B-2 is just a cleanup flight for whatever needs fixing after the B-1, it can be 20 minutes long or an hour and 20 minutes long. If he'd said B1 instead of B2 and left the customer part out he would have had a lot more creddibility.


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 929 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 36534 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 27):
However, I'm wondering if something Sinnett and/or the NTSB said got misinterpreted.

What Sinnett said and the NTSB wrote was pretty darn clear, so "misstated," perhaps, but not "misinterpreted." It would have been nice if one the journalists at the Japanese news conference had asked him whether or not Boeing sees this situation as an issue that needs fixing instead of asking stuff like whether Boeing owes the Japanese people an apology, etc.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 34, posted (1 year 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 36438 times:

ZA272 is starting its engines.

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BGNobBpCIAAyNyj.jpg:large

http://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/316211212348170241



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1322 posts, RR: 8
Reply 35, posted (1 year 1 month 7 hours ago) and read 36112 times:

Here we go, flight plan filed for LOT ZA272.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE272


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 36, posted (1 year 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 35921 times:

Live stream here:
http://www.kirotv.com/s/news/live-event/



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 35933 times:

More info:

- This will be the first of at least two test flights. This one for Boeing...basically a functional check. Then the one for the FAA.
- Boeing says the LOT 787 will perform a normal flight check profile, that includes electrical system checks.
- After this 787 flight is analysed, certification flight for battery modifications would come within a few days -Boeing.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 38, posted (1 year 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 35857 times:

On the move.




Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 39, posted (1 year 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 35826 times:

Rejected takeoff test completed.




Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1322 posts, RR: 8
Reply 40, posted (1 year 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 35748 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 39):
Rejected takeoff test completed.



Actually the RTO (Rejected Take Off) is done at the end of the flight. The test they were doing was to confirm normal operation of the engines at full thrust -- the first time engines are run at full thrust on the airplane -- previous to this full thrust was only done in the test cell at the engine manufacturer. This test was aborted at about 60 or 70 knots -- short of the RTO activation speed. Looks like they are following the B-1 profile done previously on this airplane to the letter.


User currently offlinelitz From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1753 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 1 month 5 hours ago) and read 35706 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think a lot of people are missing that we have two issues at hand :

1) the battery failed
2) the battery containment failed

The first is not necessarily bad; it happens and you replace it.

The second, however, grounded the airplane.

At this point they don't know why #1 happened, but the forensics on #2 were pretty clear.

The new box solves (imho, pretty darned conclusively) #2.

#1 is probably still up in the air; they have changes they suspect will fix it, but aren't sure.

Meanwhile the new box solves #2 and they can get back to flying airplanes.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 42, posted (1 year 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 35333 times:

"As part of its certification ground tests, Boeing will push a lithium-ion battery on 787 ZA005 to destruction"

http://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/316317161423503360

[Edited 2013-03-25 15:38:47]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3221 posts, RR: 26
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 34894 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting litz (Reply 41):
I think a lot of people are missing that we have two issues at hand :

thanks for the clarification that 3500 posts over 14 threads had failed to communicate.


User currently offlinedavidho1985 From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2012, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 34867 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 42):
"As part of its certification ground tests, Boeing will push a lithium-ion battery on 787 ZA005 to destruction"http://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/316317161423503360

Keep on charging the batteries untill they are over-heat and then burn to test the new battery boxes???


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2014 posts, RR: 4
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 34454 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 27):
Presumably if you repurposed an existing vent, you'd need to cut a new vent for whatever was there before.

There is two problems with using an existing vent.

One as you mentioned, would require repurposing an exisiting vent. Typically exisiting vents are meant to drain fluid from the bilge or to dump air overboard. I believe these type of vents require special valves that would probably not be compatible with what they are trying to do with the battery vent.

The other problem is that the fluid vent are typically located at the centerline of the aircraft (lowest point in the fuselage. Don't know about the air vent but would assume the same). Who knows how far the battery are from the existing vents? Even if the vent are at the same aiplane station as the battery, the distance from the battery to the vent would probably be more than what you would want for routing a titanium tube. The farther you have to route the tube, the greater chance you have of disturbing existing system routing.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 33773 times:

Quoting litz (Reply 41):
#1 is probably still up in the air; they have changes they suspect will fix it, but aren't sure.

Few things on this one:

1) As been discussed in one of the first grounding threads, it is very common to replace aircraft parts
2) ANA replaced about 100 to 150 batteries before the fire events, and nobody complained about it
3) It became only a problem when there was a fire, because fire = safety issue
4) So if Boeng can contain the fire then we are back at #2, so that should be enough

[Edited 2013-03-27 13:47:24]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinebellancacf From United States of America, joined May 2011, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 33568 times:

@Karel #46: "ANA replaced 100 - 150 batteries ..."

That _sounds_ like an awful lot of batteries. Is it more than would be replaced on a 767 or 777 over the same time span?

What was going wrong with them? Being replaced when they showed the slightest degradation in capacity? Being swapped out and refurbished (assuming you can refurbish a battery ...)? Something worse: failure of a cell? Short?

I guess what I'm asking is: Is that a smoking gun or not?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29709 posts, RR: 84
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 weeks ago) and read 33475 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 47):
What was going wrong with them?

Ground staff were running them down by using them longer than the book called for.



Quoting bellancacf (Reply 47):
I guess what I'm asking is: Is that a smoking gun or not?

Yes, in that it points out 787 ground crew either need better training or better supervision.


User currently offlinebellancacf From United States of America, joined May 2011, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 33302 times:

@Stitch #48:

Did this maltreatment do something to the batteries that in some (i.e., 2) cases led to the two notorious incidents? Were maltreated batteries more sensitive to the previously "rough" charging waveform or operation outside of the new, narrower voltage window?

Are B and the airlines currently (no pun intended) speaking to 787 ground crews to keep this maltreatment of the batteries from recurring?

It sounds like the batteries were driven into a corner from which they had no graceful exit -- well, usually graceful, in that they got replaced, but on two occasions pretty dramatic.

I could imagine that ground crew found out that the 787 batteries were so powerful that they could skip supplying external power. Why bother driving the generator buggy across the tarmac when the on-board kit does it all just fine? Something like that?


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3221 posts, RR: 26
Reply 50, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 33295 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 47):
I guess what I'm asking is: Is that a smoking gun or not?

Not!..

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 49):
Are B and the airlines currently (no pun intended) speaking to 787 ground crews to keep this maltreatment of the batteries from recurring?

I believe the manuals are specific, however who knows what the customer airlines tell their crews, or even contract crews at various airports.. However in most cases all they had to do was remove the battery for recharge in a shop equipped with a flame hood and extinguisher..         


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29709 posts, RR: 84
Reply 51, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 33274 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 49):
Did this maltreatment do something to the batteries that in some (i.e., 2) cases led to the two notorious incidents?

No, because the batteries were run down to the point that they triggered the safety systems and could no longer be charged aboard the plane. They were removed and new batteries installed. The removed batteries were then sent back to Yuasa and refurbished, reconditioned and recharged and became "new" batteries.



Quoting bellancacf (Reply 49):
Were maltreated batteries more sensitive to the previously "rough" charging waveform or operation outside of the new, narrower voltage window?

Please see above.


User currently offlinebellancacf From United States of America, joined May 2011, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 33357 times:

Then we do have a mystery, haven't we?

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3221 posts, RR: 26
Reply 53, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 33260 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 52):
Then we do have a mystery, haven't we?

No, you may want a mystery, however this has been explained over and over and is not an issue for returning to the air.. it may be an issue for airlines lying into airports where the grounds crews are not that airlines employees, or where ramp personnel chose to ignore the manual. but it is not Boeing's or the FAA's problem.


User currently offline14ccKemiskt From Sweden, joined Nov 2010, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 33114 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 46):
2) ANA replaced about 100 to 150 batteries before the fire events, and nobody complained about it

Do you know that nobody complained or are you guessing? The number of battery replacements indicate that each of ANA's 787 had a battery replaced at the rate of one per month per airplane. That fact should get me complaining if I was the customer.

The reliability of the 787 remains to be proven. If the battery smoke event rate would have been the same on the 737, we would have had such an event on a plane more than once per day.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 55, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 33078 times:

Quoting 14ccKemiskt (Reply 54):
Do you know that nobody complained or are you guessing? The number of battery replacements indicate that each of ANA's 787 had a battery replaced at the rate of one per month per airplane. That fact should get me complaining if I was the customer.

Well, we don't know for sure but this is literally what an ANA spokesman said:

Quote:
“We have had at least 100, possibly approaching 150, bad batteries so far,” the person said. “It’s common.”

It's common. It's just one of those parts that needs to be replaced often. If the industrie already have accepted this, thus the proposed battery fix should be a no-brainer.

[Edited 2013-03-28 01:35:33]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 56, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 33072 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 46):
4) So if Boeng can contain the fire then we are back at #2, so that should be enough

It should be enough to lift the grounding perhaps. But likely not enugh to let the aircraft have extended ETOPS of any kind, as the aircraft would have to divert to the nearest airport ASAP after the fire event. Which would significantly limit the usefulness of the aircraft if we stopped just at containment.


User currently offlinebellancacf From United States of America, joined May 2011, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 32734 times:

@kanban #53:

I didn't make myself clear -- sorry. The "mystery" I was thinking about is just what caused those two batteries to go off the reservation. I was asking earlier whether the rate at which the Li batteries were being swapped out was unusually high or not -- do I know the answer to that yet? -- forgotten. Then I was wondering whether the treatment (on the ground, presumably) that was causing the batteries to have to be swapped out could have set up some cells for more dramatic failure -- and the answer was 'no'.

So, there went a possible chain of inquiry. I had thought that maybe drawing down the cells too far set up growth of spicules or deposits which in turn would trigger further internal changes -- you know, looking for some mechanism to connect how the batteries had been treated and how those two had eventually reacted. Since I am told that there is no such connection -- no matter how suspicious it may seem to me sitting out here well beyond the sidelines -- , there's still no mechanism known behind the failures. Hence, mystery.

No. I don't want a "mystery". I'm making no connection whatever between this and return to flight. I'm just a retired researcher who tends to try to find patterns, and the 100 - 150 number just surprised me and set me going

BTW, Boeing's other changes (narrowed charging range, smoothed charging waveform) leads me to suspect that somewhere (Yuasa? Boeing? Musk?) someone is looking for a mechanism connecting charging/discharging history to thermal misbehavior, too. Doesn't it strike you the same way?


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3221 posts, RR: 26
Reply 58, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 32752 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sankaps (Reply 56):
But likely not enugh to let the aircraft have extended ETOPS of any kind, as the aircraft would have to divert to the nearest airport ASAP after the fire event. Which would significantly limit the usefulness of the aircraft if we stopped just at containment.

The FAA and other regulators will approve ETOPS after the appropriate testing is done, and engines and structures are deemed robust enough. They may limit it if dispatched with either the APU or the APU battery off line... The decision will not based on opinion posts on A.net.

Based on the new design there will be no fire event.. besides what was seen burning was not the battery but the cabling which has been changed to inflammable insulation materials. What the FAA will look at is if one or two cells fail, is diversion required.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 59, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 32696 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 58):
What the FAA will look at is if one or two cells fail, is diversion required.

How will the flight crew know what the exact nature of the fire is, and how many cells are involved or will get involved? Isn't Boeing standard instruction to divert / land ASAP is there is any smoke or fire?


User currently offlinetwiga From Canada, joined Mar 2013, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 32440 times:

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 57):
No. I don't want a "mystery". I'm making no connection whatever between this and return to flight. I'm just a retired researcher who tends to try to find patterns, and the 100 - 150 number just surprised me and set me going

Your overall line of inquiry is very sound. And with such frequent battery failures for what ever reason has to raise questions. If this was your auto battery just think of the annoyance.

Quoting kanban (Reply 58):
Based on the new design there will be no fire event.. besides what was seen burning was not the battery but the cabling which has been changed to inflammable insulation materials. What the FAA will look at is if one or two cells fail, is diversion required.
Quoting sankaps (Reply 59):
How will the flight crew know what the exact nature of the fire is, and how many cells are involved or will get involved? Isn't Boeing standard instruction to divert / land ASAP is there is any smoke or fire?

I agree the impact of one or two cells burning will be minimal particulary with their new containment system when compared with their origional blue tin box 1/16 and 1/32 inch thick aluminum alloy and considering at least 5 or 6 cells were burning at once - the first cells having used up their energy by the time the last cells kicked in. Also the rate of chemical reaction- hence 'rate' of thermal output will be significantly slowed down by going to 500 deg C cell to cell insulators as opposed to 150 deg C insulators.

Regarding sankaps question, I would think they could quite easily determine/ monitor if one or more cells were burning by installing temperature sensors on the new containment vessel, and relay info to the flight deck - the heat signature would be significantly different. Anyway just a thought.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 61, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 32384 times:

Quoting twiga (Reply 60):
Regarding sankaps question, I would think they could quite easily determine/ monitor if one or more cells were burning by installing temperature sensors on the new containment vessel, and relay info to the flight deck - the heat signature would be significantly different.

Sure, but how would they be sure that additional cells would not start burning as well? I am sure most if not all pilots would want to divert / land as soon as there is ANY sign of a battery overheat / smoke / fire event, and not continue flying in the hope the event is limited to what is first found reported by the sensors.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3221 posts, RR: 26
Reply 62, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 32346 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 57):
Doesn't it strike you the same way?

in a word ----- yes


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 63, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 32220 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 56):
It should be enough to lift the grounding perhaps. But likely not enugh to let the aircraft have extended ETOPS of any kind, as the aircraft would have to divert to the nearest airport ASAP after the fire event. Which would significantly limit the usefulness of the aircraft if we stopped just at containment.

So what kind of fix should Boeing develop to regain ETOPS? I don't believe in switching to another type of battery, but I'm not sure if it will ever be possible to prevent failure of lithium ion batteries.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 32201 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 63):

Quoting sankaps (Reply 56):
It should be enough to lift the grounding perhaps. But likely not enugh to let the aircraft have extended ETOPS of any kind, as the aircraft would have to divert to the nearest airport ASAP after the fire event. Which would significantly limit the usefulness of the aircraft if we stopped just at containment.

So what kind of fix should Boeing develop to regain ETOPS? I don't believe in switching to another type of battery, but I'm not sure if it will ever be possible to prevent failure of lithium ion batteries.

The fix was completed. Boeing and the airlines will need to demonstrate safe flying at ETOPS 180 for a year or so to qualify for ETOPS 240 consideration and beyond.


User currently offlineJHwk From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 32008 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 63):
I'm not sure if it will ever be possible to prevent failure of lithium ion batteries.

While the on-board battery incinerator system will limit possible cascading failures, the real change is more that the batteries will not be used as hard with the lower and upper limits compressing, effectively reducing the useable capacity of the battery. Failures will still happen, but if you reduce the total watt-seconds consumed that has a fairly linear improvement to life, and the watt-seconds per hour on recharge likely improves life more exponentially (2x increase in recharge time is a 4x improvement in life. I imagine Boeing is expecting the battery lives to triple with the changes. The fewer battery failures you have, the few "spectacular" failures you end up with.


User currently offlinetwiga From Canada, joined Mar 2013, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 31825 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 59):
How will the flight crew know what the exact nature of the fire is, and how many cells are involved or will get involved? Isn't Boeing standard instruction to divert / land ASAP is there is any smoke or fire?
Quoting sankaps (Reply 61):
Sure, but how would they be sure that additional cells would not start burning as well? I am sure most if not all pilots would want to divert / land as soon as there is ANY sign of a battery overheat / smoke / fire event, and not continue flying in the hope the event is limited to what is first found reported by the sensors.

I was trying to answer the first part of your question #59 and believe you got it, but just to further clarify. If one cell sets off it would produce X heat and X temperature. If two cells were to burn simultaneously they would produce 2X heat and perhaps 2X temperature (heat and temperature may not be directly proportional). In any case the pilots would be aware of the severity of the situation and the changing conditions and be able to take appropriate action. It may be from all their testing that they know what the chances of runaway to other cells would be vis a vis new insulation could be 1: 1,000,000 or more or less by a factor of 10 a 100 or a 1000 we just don't know. So there could be some rationalization based on their testing that if one cell goes (because its a drop in the bucket with their new containment system) monitor the system and just keep flying. If two cells go land ASAP. We just don't know, but we can speculate.


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1322 posts, RR: 8
Reply 67, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 31747 times:

Quoting twiga (Reply 66):
In any case the pilots would be aware of the severity of the situation and the changing conditions and be able to take appropriate action. It may be from all their testing that they know what the chances of runaway to other cells would be vis a vis new insulation could be 1: 1,000,000 or more or less by a factor of 10 a 100 or a 1000 we just don't know....So there could be some rationalization based on their testing that if one cell goes (because its a drop in the bucket with their new containment system) monitor the system and just keep flying. If two cells go land ASAP. We just don't know, but we can speculate

Everybody seems to think the pilots will have intimate knowledge of what is happening inside the "magic box" but we have heard nothing about any changes to provide more information to the crew. The ANA pilots noticed a smell, but it wasn't until there was a smoke detection that they found out they had a bigger issue. At this point there is no battery fire /smoke detection system and I don't think there will be. There are status messages and a couple of advisory messages associated with the Main and APU batteries but at that level there are no flight crew procedures related to the messages. Had the new containment system been in place on the ANA airplane the pilots may have gotten a message but would have continued on to their destination, be it 5 minutes or 5 hours away, without a care.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 31497 times:

I find it absurd so many think the engineers working on the problem are such morons not thinking about monitoring the new solutions etc.

Why is it then that they are working on the problem and all the experts here are not?


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12050 posts, RR: 47
Reply 69, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 31470 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 68):
I find it absurd so many think the engineers working on the problem are such morons not thinking about monitoring the new solutions etc.

Their first attempt wasn't so great, was it?   



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 31349 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 69):

I do not think B put as many engineers on the first solution, they rather outsourced it to Thales iirc. That then came back to bite them in the..

But still I hold higher standards of B engineers than many here I guess.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29709 posts, RR: 84
Reply 71, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 31186 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting scbriml (Reply 69):
Their first attempt wasn't so great, was it?     

The APU battery on JL8 was in thermal runaway for some time, and yet the damage was not such that would have affected safe operation, much less insured a hull loss, if it had happened in flight rather than on the ground.

NH692 safely diverted in-flight to the nearest alternate and the damage of that event also appears to have not been sufficient to affect flight safety or result in a hull loss if the nearest alternate had been much farther.

So it was indeed not "great", but it certainly wasn't "bad".


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 929 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 31013 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 67):
There are status messages and a couple of advisory messages associated with the Main and APU batteries but at that level there are no flight crew procedures related to the messages.

So if the FAA certifies Boeing's fix, will they attach some new procedural strings should the crew get a battery failure indication? Presumably the smoke, fire or fumes checklist won't be applicable since, even if the battery is totally incinerating, no smoke/fumes will be detected in the airplane as it's all going overboard. Will the FAA make 787s divert in the case of a battery failure indication just to be on the safe side?


User currently offlinetwiga From Canada, joined Mar 2013, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 30666 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 67):
Everybody seems to think the pilots will have intimate knowledge of what is happening inside the "magic box" but we have heard nothing about any changes to provide more information to the crew.

I agree we have'nt heard anything about changes to providing the crew with more informative battery information, but then again these are details that I would'nt expect to hear about at this time since they could be part of ongoing negotiations between Boeing and the Regulators. Its quite possible the Regulators could mandate improved battery data to the flight crew - other than you have a burning or dead battery.

Quoting hivue (Reply 72):
So if the FAA certifies Boeing's fix, will they attach some new procedural strings should the crew get a battery failure indication? Presumably the smoke, fire or fumes checklist won't be applicable since, even if the battery is totally incinerating, no smoke/fumes will be detected in the airplane as it's all going overboard.

Exactly - there has to be some changes to information provided.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11962 posts, RR: 25
Reply 74, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 30459 times:

Quoting twiga (Reply 60):
If this was your auto battery just think of the annoyance.

Above we're being told the product is being mis-used akin to leaving the headlights on too long...

Quoting JHwk (Reply 65):
the real change is more that the batteries will not be used as hard with the lower and upper limits compressing, effectively reducing the useable capacity of the battery. Failures will still happen, but if you reduce the total watt-seconds consumed that has a fairly linear improvement to life, and the watt-seconds per hour on recharge likely improves life more exponentially (2x increase in recharge time is a 4x improvement in life.

Seems then we'll have even more frequent swaps since the threshold for misuse is being lowered.

Quoting JHwk (Reply 65):
I imagine Boeing is expecting the battery lives to triple with the changes.

It should if the battery is spending much more time being serviced after being swapped out, but I doubt that's a desired outcome, but better than the pax hitting the slides...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6744 posts, RR: 8
Reply 75, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 30438 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 74):
Seems then we'll have even more frequent swaps since the threshold for misuse is being lowered.

If I read correctly they are also lowering the threshold where the battery has to be removed from the a/c for re-charging, time will tell whether its a wash or an improvement.


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Reply 76, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 30309 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting Revelation (Reply 74):
Seems then we'll have even more frequent swaps since the threshold for misuse is being lowered
Quoting par13del (Reply 75):
If I read correctly they are also lowering the threshold where the battery has to be removed from the a/c for re-charging, time will tell whether its a wash or an improvement.

I believe what they are doing is providing margin between a "shutoff" and "non-rechargeable" levels. In other words, the airplane systems (on the ground of course) will shut down at a point where you can still safely recharge in the plane. It will mean a shorter run time on the ground, but less replacements due to deep discharge.

Quoting hivue (Reply 72):
So if the FAA certifies Boeing's fix, will they attach some new procedural strings should the crew get a battery failure indication? Presumably the smoke, fire or fumes checklist won't be applicable since, even if the battery is totally incinerating, no smoke/fumes will be detected in the airplane as it's all going overboard. Will the FAA make 787s divert in the case of a battery failure indication just to be on the safe side?

Correct, smoke/fumes will not apply. However, they will certainly know the battery failed - and that failure may require a division (probably depends on the flight profile being flown).



rcair1
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1322 posts, RR: 8
Reply 77, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 30672 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 76):
However, they will certainly know the battery failed - and that failure may require a division (probably depends on the flight profile being flown).

That would require some hardware/software changes as none of the present battery messages have procedures associated with them. The highest level of any battery messages is Advisory -- the Main battery has two which cover battery discharging or being low -- neither which fits the scenario. Boeing would have to come up with a Warning message that in itself would have to be certified and that is no easy task. If they do go down that path it will set an ugly precedent.


User currently offlinebellancacf From United States of America, joined May 2011, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 30531 times:

Don't understand. In what way an "ugly precedent"?

There's now a battery with an unknown failure rate (yes, we can hope, but ...) inside a well-sealed box capable of containing a certain amount of pressure, whatever it will tolerate before blowing the disc to the outside. Isn't there going to be some way of letting the crew and maintenance know a little about what they're going to find with they start to take the top off that box? A little button, at least, like the one on your turkey to let you know that it's hot inside.   Actually, I suspect that all this stuff has been worked into the solution; we just don't know about it because your friendly, local intelligence service has more blabbermouths than the aviation industry, it seems. Does anything _ever_ leak from these guys?


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3221 posts, RR: 26
Reply 79, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 30472 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 76):
I believe what they are doing is providing margin between a "shutoff" and "non-rechargeable" levels. In other words, the airplane systems (on the ground of course) will shut down at a point where you can still safely recharge in the plane. It will mean a shorter run time on the ground, but less replacements due to deep discharge.

That's the way I read it.. good to see you still hanging in there.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 78):

Don't understand. In what way an "ugly precedent"?

the crews are already swamped with data and adding more alerts for systems that might fail could cause overload to the degree that something vital will be missed. The question is would the added information cause any deviation from normal flight? if it's just information with no required non standard action, then why add it to the conscious overload? Kind of like having a monitor and aural alert for blue ice buildup on the drain mast.. what are you going to do.. open the door and have a FA pilot try to kick it off?


User currently offlinebellancacf From United States of America, joined May 2011, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 30376 times:

Aah. Good prioritizing. Is there a place where the crew can read up, once they've landed, on little things that have happened during the flight, like, oh yes, one of the batteries boiled over and would someone please clean up the spill?

User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1322 posts, RR: 8
Reply 81, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 30296 times:

If the airplane is safe to go back in the air, creating a "Warning" message where the only procedure is to divert to the nearest suitable airport for something that, barring any other messages, will be over and done before you get there is ludacris. It makes one statement -- this airplane is not safe. A myriad of information is already downloaded to maintenance during and after every flight -- a few more lines of code dedicated to the battery will now probably be add.

User currently offlinebellancacf From United States of America, joined May 2011, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 29865 times:

How about some visual indication of conditions inside the box? Do you think that something will be built into the box itself?

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29709 posts, RR: 84
Reply 83, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 29838 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 80):
Is there a place where the crew can read up, once they've landed, on little things that have happened during the flight, like, oh yes, one of the batteries boiled over and would someone please clean up the spill?

I would think such functionality could be built into the data recorders that airlines have on their aircraft for tracking maintenance issues (I don't recall the official nomenclature) if it is in fact not already present.

I am assuming the current flight crew alerting system would inform the crew if either battery became unavailable (especially the APU battery, since it is necessary to operate the APU). So if the crew received such an alert, they follow whatever procedures their airline dictates in such a situation and then once at the airport the maintenance team can query that data recorder and that would tell them what actually happened.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3221 posts, RR: 26
Reply 84, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 29833 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think Boeing's "Flight Bag" maintenance system or what ever it's called is the place for this data.. loading up the flight data recorders puts un necessary data there which would require additional procedures to obtain and interpret. One of the tech writer's mottos is "brevity and simplicity" that should apply to this situation as well. example when a plane is on a collision course, the aural command is "Pull UP!" not "pardon the intrusion, however an object that could terminate this journey is approaching at your elevation at 173 degrees. It is suggest that...." well you get the picture. So putting an indicator in the maintenance computer on board is the most logical and easiest to access.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 82):
How about some visual indication of conditions inside the box

how about eight thermal pop-ups like used on T day turkeys.. one for each cell..      


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Reply 85, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 29768 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 77):
That would require some hardware/software changes as none of the present battery messages have procedures associated with them. The highest level of any battery messages is Advisory -- the Main battery has two which cover battery discharging or being low --

Thanks for that info. I was unsure if there were existing profiles/cases where a main battery failure could cause a diversion. I do NOT think adding a warning is warranted if there were not already one there for battery failure (as opposed to smoke). Since smoke will not happen - then whatever level of warning/diversion on main battery failure should stay the same.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 82):
Do you think that something will be built into the box itself?

Pretty dark in there   And what will it tell them. If the battery emits smoke - any visibility inside would be quickly lost. With the venting/containment system in place, diversion for that is not required. In this case, fat, dumb and happy may be the best result.

Quoting kanban (Reply 79):
the crews are already swamped with data and adding more alerts for systems that might fail could cause overload to the degree that something vital will be missed.

Agreed.
Information overload is an issue. We have seen that with other cases - it can cause loss of situational awareness or focus on the wrong thing. Even the NB A380 case is an interesting study. While the pilots - all 5 I think - were working very hard to get through all the ECAM notices - they still did not know everything. For instance, they did not know the #1 engine was still running when they landed.
It is a really hard problem. Where do you draw the line between too much and too little. Both can cause disasters.



rcair1
User currently offlineBogi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 86, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 29660 times:


Happy Easter


User currently offlinetwiga From Canada, joined Mar 2013, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 29614 times:

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 82):
How about some visual indication of conditions inside the box? Do you think that something will be built into the box itself?
Quoting kanban (Reply 84):
One of the tech writer's mottos is "brevity and simplicity" that should apply to this situation as well.

What would be wrong with 150 year old steam technology like mounting a pressure guage on the containment vessel. But I am sure their monitoring system (by measuring thermals with temperature sensors and pressures at the containment vessel) could tell them if they were dealing with one cell or two cells or more cells toasting and info could be relayed/ recorded and action(s) as appropriate could be taken based on severity of situation as Boeing and the regulators decide. I agree with other posters overload of info at the flight deck could be an issue and don't know what the answer is until confidence in the fix is established. I personally think the toasting of one or two cells in their new containment system will be a drop in the bucket. Anyway we don't know whats going on behind the scene and can only speculate.

I was wondering, when FAA approval is given will results of Boeings testing be made public or is this information confidential between Boeing and the regulators because of proprietary issues? Or will they only make available what the public needs to know to instill confidence in safety?


User currently offlinePugman211 From UK - England, joined Dec 2012, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 29180 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Has ZA005 done its test flight yet?

Thanks


User currently offlineHumanitarian From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 28957 times:

Quoting Pugman211 (Reply 88):
Has ZA005 done its test flight yet?

My understanding is that it would be doing a battery failure test on the ground. Have not heard if that has been completed.


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1322 posts, RR: 8
Reply 90, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 28948 times:

Quoting Pugman211 (Reply 88):
Has ZA005 done its test flight yet?

Thanks
Quoting Humanitarian (Reply 89):
My understanding is that it would be doing a battery failure test on the ground. Have not heard if that has been completed.

My understanding was the only certification flight taking place was on LOT ZA272, ZA005 was only being used for ground testing of the battery.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 91, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 28906 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 90):
My understanding was the only certification flight taking place was on LOT ZA272, ZA005 was only being used for ground testing of the battery.

Perhaps this was not a certification flight, but a test flight that was supposed to take place yesterday to test the power panels was postponed. See http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/...ght-intended-to-test-power-panels/


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1322 posts, RR: 8
Reply 92, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 28823 times:

Quoting Pugman211 (Reply 88):
Has ZA005 done its test flight yet?
Quoting Humanitarian (Reply 89):
My understanding is that it would be doing a battery failure test on the ground. Have not heard if that has been completed.
Quoting sankaps (Reply 91):
Perhaps this was not a certification flight, but a test flight that was supposed to take place yesterday to test the power panels was postponed

It appears the ZA005 test flight is unrelated to the present grounding so it really isn't a point of discussion here--it's just another test flight. But it does beg the question--are all the battery modification ground tests, including the battery failure test, complete and is Boeing returning to its normal testing schedule on ZA005? With the AD the priority it seems strange that they would be working other tests on the airplane, unless they were done.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 93, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 28692 times:

They seem to test a new electrical board? Otherwise they will test the PIP2 of the GEnx engine as well.

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 94, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 28676 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 92):
But it does beg the question--are all the battery modification ground tests, including the battery failure test, complete and is Boeing returning to its normal testing schedule on ZA005?

Well, in this article http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...20671693_boeingtestflightxml.html, it says that "McNerney also said that Boeing was taking the opportunity of the battery fix downtime “to tighten up some things and make sure we’re in good shape as we get this plane back into service.”


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1322 posts, RR: 8
Reply 95, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 28619 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 94):
Well, in this article http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...20671693_boeingtestflightxml.html, it says that "McNerney also said that Boeing was taking the opportunity of the battery fix downtime “to tighten up some things and make sure we’re in good shape as we get this plane back into service.”

Power panels sound like they could fall in that category but that probably wouldn't be available when the airplanes go back into service.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29709 posts, RR: 84
Reply 96, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 28476 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

ZA005 is testing revisions to the power distribution panels to address minor short-circuits that have occurred on a number of revenue flights for UA, NH and AI as well as a QR delivery flight. In each case, redundant systems took over and the flights continued to their intended destination with the exception of one UA flight where the crew chose to divert to MSY.

Last I had heard, all these affected panels were from a single production batch and it was assumed their was a QC issue during manufacturing. That being said, it sounds like Boeing instituted a design refinement, anyway, perhaps to prevent such a short from requiring switching to redundant systems.

[Edited 2013-03-31 15:58:20]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 97, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 27892 times:

ZA272 will takeoff in about 25 minutes to test the power panels.

Flight plan here: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/B...2/history/20130401/1800Z/KPAE/KMWH

An EWA flight with the FAA onboard is scheduled for tomorrow.



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, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 98, posted (1 year 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 27048 times:

A piece of encouraging news:

ANA Pilots to Undergo 'Resumption' Training in Hopes 787 Returns in June

Quote:

Japan’s All Nippon Airways, Boeing’s (BA) largest Dreamliner customer, reportedly plans to start training pilots on the 787 this month under the assumption the fleet will return to service in June.

ANA, which has cancelled more than 3,600 flights through the end of May because of the 787 problem, will put its roughly 200 Dreamliner pilots through "flight resumption simulator training" starting in mid-April, according to a report by Reuters.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 99, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 26294 times:

Another flight plan filed for ZA272. Flight is unrelated to battery testing/certification.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE272



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 100, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 25817 times:

Looks like we'd better not hold our breath!   This says that Boeing have a lot more testing to do yet:-

"Boeing (BA) said it has finished more than half of the testing on its proposed battery fix for the 787, with the rest of the ground and flight tests coming in the next several days.

"The test results so far have been in line with the testing Boeing did when it was developing the fix, spokesman Marc Birtel said on Wednesday."


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_1...liner-testing-more-than-half-done/



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2163 posts, RR: 8
Reply 101, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 25693 times:

Quoting litz (Reply 41):
I think a lot of people are missing that we have two issues at hand :

1) the battery failed
2) the battery containment failed

The first is not necessarily bad; it happens and you replace it.

The second, however, grounded the airplane.

At this point they don't know why #1 happened, but the forensics on #2 were pretty clear.

The new box solves (imho, pretty darned conclusively) #2.

#1 is probably still up in the air; they have changes they suspect will fix it, but aren't sure.

Meanwhile the new box solves #2 and they can get back to flying airplanes.

100% correct

Quoting kanban (Reply 43):
thanks for the clarification that 3500 posts over 14 threads had failed to communicate.

Amen...

I wonder how long will it take to find out what causes the batteries to fail, and I mean the critical paths that lead to a thermal runaway...

I am Impressed the 787 has been grounded for so long, I expected 2 weeks tops...

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2014 posts, RR: 4
Reply 102, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 25677 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 100):
Looks like we'd better not hold our breath! This says that Boeing have a lot more testing to do yet:-

Wonder if the rest of the testing involve cycling test. If you want to simulate 5, 10, 25 years worth of actual service, even if you are accelerating the cycle, you still need time. Specially if you are concern that quick charge and dis-charge cycling will skew your results.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 103, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 25708 times:

Boeing Engineers Standing by in Japan to Start 787 Battery Fix, source.

I guess certification is imminent now.



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, 6955 posts, RR: 18
Reply 104, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 25559 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 103):
Boeing Engineers Standing by in Japan to Start 787 Battery Fix, source.

There was a pair of 788 sitting idle at HND today in a different area than the others, I assume these are the first to get the fix.

When the first flight is scheduled, I'll be there   



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1322 posts, RR: 8
Reply 105, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 25505 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 102):
Wonder if the rest of the testing involve cycling test. If you want to simulate 5, 10, 25 years worth of actual service, even if you are accelerating the cycle, you still need time

Not everything goes through cycling tests. The container is so overbuilt compared to other parts of the airplane it is not really a concern and the battery even with a normal lifespan wouldn't live to see 2 years let alone 5 or 15.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 25407 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

We can safely assume that once Boeing settled on the fix, they've been running battery charge/discharge tests on their ground based test bed 24/7. They've also likely pushed the battery beyond what the new settings would be and deliberately pushed the battery into various failure modes to demonstrate the new standards in both the insulation, charging/discharging and containment (as we've seen from the Boeing video).

They should be on the last round of testing and then the FAA will weigh in as to whether they want/need/require more testing overall or to set up specific testing targeting a particular area for the FAA.

Once that is done, the FAA publishes its new directive and Boeing implements it ASAP.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1471 posts, RR: 2
Reply 107, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 25288 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 106):
We can safely assume that once Boeing settled on the fix, they've been running battery charge/discharge tests on their ground based test bed 24/7. They've also likely pushed the battery beyond what the new settings would be and deliberately pushed the battery into various failure modes to demonstrate the new standards in both the insulation, charging/discharging and containment (as we've seen from the Boeing video).

They should be on the last round of testing and then the FAA will weigh in as to whether they want/need/require more testing overall or to set up specific testing targeting a particular area for the FAA.

Once that is done, the FAA publishes its new directive and Boeing implements it ASAP.

Nope, we can't assume any of that.

As for FAA directives they may depend on what comes out at the FAA public hearings as much as test results of Boeings proposed fix.



BV
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2821 posts, RR: 27
Reply 108, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 25193 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 107):
As for FAA directives they may depend on what comes out at the FAA public hearings

Which public hearings? The FAA does not hold public hearings on ADs.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 25179 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 107):

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 106):
We can safely assume that once Boeing settled on the fix, they've been running battery charge/discharge tests on their ground based test bed 24/7. They've also likely pushed the battery beyond what the new settings would be and deliberately pushed the battery into various failure modes to demonstrate the new standards in both the insulation, charging/discharging and containment (as we've seen from the Boeing video).

They should be on the last round of testing and then the FAA will weigh in as to whether they want/need/require more testing overall or to set up specific testing targeting a particular area for the FAA.

Once that is done, the FAA publishes its new directive and Boeing implements it ASAP.

Nope, we can't assume any of that.

As for FAA directives they may depend on what comes out at the FAA public hearings as much as test results of Boeings proposed fix.

Time will tell but I think we can assume these steps have been taken already. From published reports we've seen, Boeing identified several changes which would minimize the risk of an overcharge situation (change high/low limits). We've seen them add insulation with more than 3x temp tolerance between the cells, we've seen them increase the distance between the cells, and we've seen the containment box and vent system.

The FAA is concerned with safety. Assuming a worst case runaway on the battery, what risks are there to the airworthiness of the aircraft and souls aboard? The new "box" withstood 3x the over pressure which would occur if all cells blew at once. The cells in the JL and NH incidents didn't blow all at once. Plan for worse case and add margin over that point. Look at the wing stress tests for an example of over engineering.

It is possible the FAA will say they don't think the fixes are good enough, they can say they want the whole thing started over from scratch but how many times has the FAA said that?

The FAA doesn't do public hearings. They do issue directives. The NTSB does do public hearings and they do issue recommendations.


User currently offlinetwiga From Canada, joined Mar 2013, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 110, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 24858 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 106):
They've also likely pushed the battery beyond what the new settings would be and deliberately pushed the battery into various failure modes to demonstrate the new standards in both the insulation,
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 109):
Time will tell but I think we can assume these steps have been taken already. From published reports we've seen, Boeing identified several changes which would minimize the risk of an overcharge situation (change high/low limits). We've seen them add insulation with more than 3x temp tolerance between the cells, we've seen them increase the distance between the cells, and we've seen the containment box and vent system.

I agree. Wouldn't they have to quantify these results to some statistical values, similar to what they had to do origionally for thermal runaway, if I recall correctly 1:10^7 Hrs. Obviously they won't need anything near this number because of the near 100% fool proof containment system, but the new statistic for battery failure worse case seneario (all 8 cells) in conjunction with the new containment system would have to meet the origional statistic of 1:10^7 Hrs. So I would suspect the regulators might want to see two numbers for the enhancements (particularly insulation for #2) to the battery.
1) What are the statistical chances for one cell to short and burn. Without the root cause I suspect this number might not be possible.
2) What are the statistical chances for thermal runaway beyond the initial shorting cell involving more cell(s).

And also with the enhanced insulation (from 150 to 500 deg C) if other cells do runaway it will take longer to consume all the energy of the battery. So how much longer for all 8 cells? This is important because the severity of the situation depends on the "rates of increase" and "maximums" temperature, pressure etc. so if the runaway is significantly prolonged the severity of the event is significantly reduced. And I would think this has a bearing on the design of the containment system - pressures, temperatures, heat sink capacity etc. So I think it takes alot of testing to quantify all these things. How they can put statistical numbers to some of these items by failing say a dozen batteries is beyond me - perhaps somebody with a statistical background wants to jump in here. Its probably as complicated and mysterious, at least to me, as in how they came up with their first number of 1:10^7 if I have it correct.

I was also wondering, when FAA approval is finally given will results of Boeings testing be made public or is this information confidential between Boeing and the regulators because of possible proprietary issues? Or will they only make available what the public needs to know to instill confidence in the safety of the system? How do these things normally work?


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 929 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 24709 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 107):
Nope, we can't assume any of that.

Boeing has developed a certification plan for the new battery system and has submitted that to the FAA. The FAA has accepted that plan. Boeing is in the process of ticking the boxes. Once they are all ticked it is highly unlikely the FAA will say "wait a minute -- we didn't mean that. You have to make some modifications to the plan."

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 107):
As for FAA directives they may depend on what comes out at the FAA public hearings

As others have pointed out, this apparently is a mistaken reference to the upcoming NTSB hearing. It will be interesting to see if this hearing and/or its findings affects activities already underway to return the 787 to revenue service quickly.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 112, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 24644 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting twiga (Reply 110):
I was also wondering, when FAA approval is finally given will results of Boeings testing be made public or is this information confidential between Boeing and the regulators because of possible proprietary issues? Or will they only make available what the public needs to know to instill confidence in the safety of the system? How do these things normally work?

I would think under the Freedom of Information Act, one could obtain this data if it is not published. We have most of the relevant details on the fix and the testing. Boeing may elect to publish an overview of the test data itself to boost public confidence in the a/c and the company.


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6272 posts, RR: 4
Reply 113, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 24487 times:

Quoting hivue (Reply 111):
As others have pointed out, this apparently is a mistaken reference to the upcoming NTSB hearing. It will be interesting to see if this hearing and/or its findings affects activities already underway to return the 787 to revenue service quickly.

NTSB services the FAA in an investigative/advisory role only. If the FAA chooses to ignore the NTSB, well, there is prior precedence for that   Not every single NTSB recommendation has been pushed forward by the FAA as an Airworthiness Directive or new FAR   



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3221 posts, RR: 26
Reply 114, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 24393 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 112):
I would think under the Freedom of Information Act, one could obtain this data if it is not published.

because the data may allude to proprietary design criteria, it is highly unlikely that it will be released. Of course that will start a whole new batch of conspiracy theories...   


User currently offlinetwiga From Canada, joined Mar 2013, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 115, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 24412 times:

Quoting twiga (Reply 110):
So how much longer for all 8 cells? This is important because the severity of the situation depends on the "rates of increase" and "maximums" temperature, pressure etc. so if the runaway is significantly prolonged the severity of the event is significantly reduced. And I would think this has a bearing on the design of the containment system - pressures, temperatures, heat sink capacity etc. So I think it takes alot of testing to quantify all these things.

Sorry a slight correction here that some of you may have picked up. Mathematically the engineers and scientists would have quantified these things in designing the containment system - the testing would be to confirm their theory, assumptions, numbers, factors of safety and to develop the required statistics.


User currently offlinetwiga From Canada, joined Mar 2013, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 24350 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 113):
NTSB services the FAA in an investigative/advisory role only. If the FAA chooses to ignore the NTSB, well, there is prior precedence for that Not every single NTSB recommendation has been pushed forward by the FAA as an Airworthiness Directive or new FAR

You are probably right. But doesn't NTSB and the FAA both report to the same Boss (Sect of Transportation) and he may influence or have something to say like be on the same page - or is complete independence always the norm.




















y


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2014 posts, RR: 4
Reply 117, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 23862 times:

Quoting hivue (Reply 111):

Boeing has developed a certification plan for the new battery system and has submitted that to the FAA.
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 112):
I would think under the Freedom of Information Act, one could obtain this data if it is not published.
Quoting kanban (Reply 114):

because the data may allude to proprietary design criteria, it is highly unlikely that it will be released.

Yep, the qualification plan may be proprietary. The raw data from the testing is definitely proprietary althought he result (pass/faile) is definitely free to the public  

In term of testing. I forgot about some of the other testing that is required for qualifications. Besides the functional and life time testing (of the battery service life), there is the environmental testing (salt air, sand, dust, etc . . .) which sometimes require many cycles. There is thermal testing, cold soak, heat soak, water soak (humidity). There is vibration (functioning and non functioning), and static ultimate load analysis. Some of the testing (ultimate and limit load) may be avoided through analysis. However because they added new materials (the ceramic isolators) and increased the battery weight, they may have to re-do many of the test for cerfication.

Most critical may be the functional vibration as the increased battery weight may cause a change in the first mode of vibration frequency of the battery installation. If this mode drops down to the same natural frequency of the airframe, then there would be more re-designing to do.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 118, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 23632 times:

And here we go:

Quote:
Just filed 787 demonstration flight plan - the final certification test for new battery system
http://twitter.com/BoeingAirplanes/status/320220023736107008
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE272



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 23586 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Excellent, time to fly!

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 120, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 23674 times:

The statement from Boeing:

Quote:
Boeing has filed a flight plan to conduct the 787 battery certification demonstration flight today on Line number 86, a Boeing-owned production airplane built for LOT Polish Airlines.

Today’s demonstration flight is the final certification test for the new battery system. The purpose of the test is to demonstrate that the new system performs as intended during normal and non-normal flight conditions.

The flight plan (which is always subject to change) can be viewed via FlightAware, which can also be used to track the airplane’s route, location and progress throughout the flight, at this link: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE272

The flight will take off and land at Paine Field in Everett, Wash. The flight is currently scheduled to depart at approx. 11:00 am Pacific time, but is subject to change. The flight is expected to be approximately 2 hours in length.

We plan to provide updates via Twitter (@BoeingAirplanes). A statement will be distributed to the media via e-mail after the flight is completed.

Separately, Boeing had this to say about advance preparations to return the airplane to service:

We have formed a series of AOG teams to help our customers implement the improvements once certified. One of the teams has already deployed but will not perform battery work until the solutions are certified. Details about the AOG teams are considered proprietary.

Our Aircraft-on-Ground Services team (AOG team) is prepared and equipped to support the implementation of approved modifications to the in-service fleet of 787s. The content of their work packages is driven by our customers’ requests. No work is being done on the battery systems at this time as we are still working through the certification process. AOG teams provide the unique capability for an on-site, comprehensive and integrated modification to airplanes. As always, the safety of those who fly aboard Boeing airplanes is our highest priority.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineb78710 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 23395 times:

So how soon after the certification flight will the fix be certified?

Anyone know how long the mods are likely to take per aircraft?


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 122, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 23397 times:

Quoting b78710 (Reply 121):
So how soon after the certification flight will the fix be certified?

Some say weeks, others say days. Either way, Boeing already deployed teams in Japan to install the battery and that is an indication that the paper work should only take a few days.

Quoting b78710 (Reply 121):
Anyone know how long the mods are likely to take per aircraft?

5 days per aircraft.

[Edited 2013-04-05 11:30:17]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinehumanitarian From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 23327 times:

Even the Secretary of Transportation is now sounding positive.

"Boeing has "good" 787 battery plan fix: official"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...liner-lahood-idUSBRE9340LN20130405


User currently offlineb78710 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 124, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 23240 times:

excellent news, its been a while coming

User currently offlinePugman211 From UK - England, joined Dec 2012, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 23315 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Interesting that FR24 is showing 2 787's in the air at the same time, one being BOE272 and the other being 005 for LOT, (obviously a glitch tho)

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 126, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 23098 times:

According to this story the flight was 'straightforward and uneventful.'

"Amid gusty winds, a LOT Polish airline plane rose from a runway near the Boeing factory just north of Seattle and soared out along the Pacific Coast, covering 755 miles in just under two hours before touching down at 12:28 pm Pacific Time (1928 GMT).

"The jet carried test equipment and Federal Aviation Administration officials, and flew a similar route to a test run March 25. At the conclusion, Boeing pronounced the flight "straightforward" and "uneventful."

"Boeing will now gather and analyze the data and submit the required materials to the FAA ... in coming days," the company said in a statement.

"Once we deliver the materials we stand ready to reply to additional requests and continue in dialog with the FAA to ensure we have met all of their expectations."


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...g-dreamliner-idUSL2N0CS16U20130405



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 127, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 22966 times:

There is a second flight scheduled for today. Source http://kpae.blogspot.nl/2013/04/paine-field-april-5.html


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 128, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 21601 times:

Update.

Quote:

...

Even in normal times, Boeing has so-called Airplane-On-Ground (AOG) teams ready to travel anywhere in the world where a customer’s jet is grounded.

This time, the teams will arrive with complete new battery kits. Each upgraded battery will have a stainless-steel containment box and a 1-inch-diameter titanium tube for venting any gases if overheating occurs.

For each of the batteries on any jet — one forward, just behind and below the cockpit; and one aft, just behind and below the wing — the AOG mechanics will have to drill a new hole in the fuselage and connect the venting tube to that outlet.

...

Most of the tests required by the FAA were completed on the ground, either in a lab or in a test plane parked at Paine Field.

Besides the outer containment box and the venting tubes, the new battery system includes high-temperature phenolic glass laminate dividers and clear electrical tape around each of the eight lithium-ion cells to provide both heat and electrical insulation.

To ensure the steel enclosure box can deal with even the worst-case battery overheating incident, one test Boeing conducted entailed igniting propane gas within the box to cause an explosion that had to be completely contained.

...



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineseat55a From New Zealand, joined Jan 2013, 68 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20659 times:

UA is scheduling domestic 787 flights for 31 May, international for 10 June -- official (but subject to change), confirmed by United Continental Holdings.

(via Associated Press)


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 130, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20634 times:

It doesn't take a month and a half to replace a battery box and upgrade charger software. What's the delay? I'd assume that Boeing would have been getting the boxes built from the minute they settled on the design. It would be a small risk.


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2821 posts, RR: 27
Reply 131, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 20588 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 130):
What's the delay?

- Formal AD issuance process from FAA
- Modification schedule (Boeing's AOG team can't retrofit 50+ aircraft and get sign-off overnight)
- Crew currency
- Integrating flights into the schedule
- Contingencies



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5267 posts, RR: 8
Reply 132, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 20413 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 23):
Quoting blrsea (Reply 20):
How different is it in drilling holes in CFRP fuselage compared to aluminium ones?

B787 Grounding: Tech/ops Thread Part 2 (by 777ER Mar 9 2013 in Tech Ops)

Quote:
For a hole in the 787, even if you use the sharpest cutting tool, you will always expect cracks and micro delamination at the cut edges. Sealing will prevent moisture from getting into the crack (and freeze causing additional delamination). However, most likely they will put some sort of bolted and/or bonded doubler around the cutout so any crack growth would be arrested by the bolt clamp-up.

Perhaps a dumb question, but would a laser be better for cutting through CFRP versus other methods? I am not saying they would use it in this situation but am just curious.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29709 posts, RR: 84
Reply 133, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 20296 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tugger (Reply 132):
Perhaps a dumb question, but would a laser be better for cutting through CFRP versus other methods? I am not saying they would use it in this situation but am just curious.

Lasers will melt the polymer and carbon fibers.

High-pressure water jets would be best, I would think, but can't be used in the field, so a saw is the best option.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2014 posts, RR: 4
Reply 134, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 19790 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 132):
but would a laser be better for cutting through CFRP versus other methods?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 133):
Lasers will melt the polymer and carbon fibers.

In this case, the polymer (an epoxy), a thermoset will not melt but will burn and char into ashy powder. You are thinking about thermoplastics like polyester and nylon, which will melt and burn.

Any heat approaching the cure temperature of the composite will weaken the composite structure in the area of the cut. You don't want weak structure where you have just put a hole (even if you are putting in a doubler).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 133):
High-pressure water jets would be best, I would think, but can't be used in the field,

Yep   because the abbrasive additive they add to the water would contaminate the heck out of everything if you don't give it a complete wash down.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6272 posts, RR: 4
Reply 135, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 19601 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 131):
- Crew currency

Supposedly, the 787 and 777 share a common type rating (which I really don't agree with, but that's beside the point). Wonder how many 787 crews are doing 777 rotations?  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2014 posts, RR: 4
Reply 136, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 19522 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 133):
and carbon fibers.

Come to think of it, can you cut a carbon fiber with a laser in the first place?

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3221 posts, RR: 26
Reply 137, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 19404 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Home Deport has some excellent hole saws in diameters up to 5 inches.. so why not just use one?

User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 138, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 19314 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 107):
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 106):
We can safely assume that once Boeing settled on the fix, they've been running battery charge/discharge tests on their ground based test bed 24/7. They've also likely pushed the battery beyond what the new settings would be and deliberately pushed the battery into various failure modes to demonstrate the new standards in both the insulation, charging/discharging and containment (as we've seen from the Boeing video).

They should be on the last round of testing and then the FAA will weigh in as to whether they want/need/require more testing overall or to set up specific testing targeting a particular area for the FAA.

Once that is done, the FAA publishes its new directive and Boeing implements it ASAP.

Nope, we can't assume any of that.

I am an engineer, and I do not believe any engineer in their right mind would design something like this without running that test. Unless someone was pointing a gun at their heads, I think we *can* safely assume they have been running this and many other tests in the ground.

Quoting humanitarian (Reply 123):
"Boeing has "good" 787 battery plan fix: official"

Great news! Wishing good progress for getting the issue to its final resolution and the planes back in the air!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 126):
According to this story the flight was 'straightforward and uneventful.'

I was kind of hoping for an airborne test of a burning battery, but that seems to indicate we did not get that.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 139, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 19288 times:

ZA005 is in the air.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/B...5/history/20130409/1630Z/KBFI/KBFI



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinediscovery1 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 21 posts, RR: 0
Reply 140, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 19221 times:

United is planning on having their birds flying on the 31st:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...on-may-31-20130408,0,7389846.story


User currently offlinetwiga From Canada, joined Mar 2013, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 141, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 18938 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 136):
Come to think of it, can you cut a carbon fiber with a laser in the first place?
Quoting kanban (Reply 137):
Home Deport has some excellent hole saws in diameters up to 5 inches.. so why not just use one?

From what little I know about cutting CFRP from a hobbiest point of view, which might have some bearing on how they may go about making these holes. Don't know about a laser. I think the heat would melt the resin/ epoxy at the cut face and additional filing/ sanding would be required to finish the cut edge. When using power tools they would either use a tungsten carbide or diamond grit bit and under cut the edge by say 1 to 2 mm because the heat from cutting dry would melt the epoxy/ resin. (cutting wet for a retrofit may or may not be practicle). If cut dry they would finish to final dimension by either filing or sanding, and the edges would be sealed/ treated with resin/ epoxy. If a fine hand saw was used it would likely cause more edge delam and therefore require more undercutting, filing/ sanding. The dust from dry cutting carbon fiber is extremely dangerous for the lungs. Strips of CFRP 1/16 inch thick can be cut on a table saw with a diamond grit blade - overcut in this case and again finished to final dimension by filing or sanding. Obviously Boeing have standardized procedures and probably specialized tooling for this. Anyway youv'e got my two bits worth.


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6272 posts, RR: 4
Reply 142, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 18625 times:

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 138):
I was kind of hoping for an airborne test of a burning battery, but that seems to indicate we did not get that.

According to All things 787 (here: http://nyc787.blogspot.com/), there was a ground test of an actual fully charged battery being shorted out, and forced to enter thermal runaway in LN/5 (N787FT). On the ground is actually a worst-case scenario, as when airborne pressure differential helps to evacuate the E&E compartments   This is why the damage was much worse in the JL incident than the NH incident.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6272 posts, RR: 4
Reply 143, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 18586 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 139):
ZA005 is in the air.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/B.../KBFI

I doubt, though, that the the flying that ZA005 is doing right now has anything to do with battery testing, as many people involved have said that the all the flying needed for the battery work has been done. ZA005 had been doing flight testing of various 787-900 components before the battery problems arose...  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinetwiga From Canada, joined Mar 2013, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 144, posted (1 year 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 18380 times:

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 138):
I was kind of hoping for an airborne test of a burning battery, but that seems to indicate we did not get that.

I agree and was hoping for the same. I know this is a contraversial topic. I suggested or alluded to this further back in a post, and safety of the test crew was raised. Also the example of ground testing for containment of a broken fan blade was given. In my opinion this broken fan blade testing is a little different because there could be some ubpredictable or unknown consequences since inflight you would have the additional force of 580 mph air velocity to contend with, and I don't know whether or not they do these tests in a wind tunnel. Besides something that is rotating at 10,000 rpm or whatever is a little unpredictable even with the safety shield. I can think of more reasons than not to do inflight tests for a burning battery.

1) From a strength of materials perspective the new containment vessel is at least 6 to 10 times stronger than the origional blue box, that many of or at least some of the posters thought worked, even though NTSB and FAA obviously didn't. Besides the vent tube improves the safety of pressures and temperature/ heat by at least another x 10 or 100 on the ground and x 100 or 1,000 or whatever in the air, and with the battery improvements, particulary the cell to cell insulation the safety is further improved. The regulators are probably looking for that combined improvement number of 1:10^7 hr. or whatever the number is . So I don't see inflight safety testing being a risk issue any more than driving to work.

2) Here we are engineering for a known, measurable and predictable condition, no different than the fire and heat coming from the APU. If you don't trust the engineering then there are about a million other things you should be worried about on the airplane.

3) The inflight testing could be done with monitoring and within 20 minutes of landing. Far better than to have something go awry mid pacific with a load of passengers.

4) If for no other reason than from a public and PR perspective wouldn't this instill confidence in the design of the new system. Isn't it far better to say, it was tested in flight, where most peoples concerns are, than to just say "trust us" and our lab and ground testing. Isn't it possible this is sending the subtle message "it's too risky to test inflight". Because after all I'm sure cost is not the issue, when it's reportedly costing Boeing $50 m/ week while grounded.

Anyway these are my thoughts on the subject, and I'm sure that some others may have similar thoughts or perhaps not. Granted it's contraversial.   


User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 145, posted (1 year 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 17986 times:

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
Anyway these are my thoughts on the subject, and I'm sure that some others may have similar thoughts or perhaps not. Granted it's contraversial.

Your points made a lot of sense to me.


User currently offlineAquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 146, posted (1 year 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 17957 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 137):
Home Deport has some excellent hole saws in diameters up to 5 inches.. so why not just use one?

Yeah, I believe Home Depot is already in the official list of approved suppliers for the 787 program...
 



chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 147, posted (1 year 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 17669 times:

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
If for no other reason than from a public and PR perspective wouldn't this instill confidence in the design of the new system.

Boeing doesn't bother with crisis management PR, preferring instead to bank on their industry reputation -- this is a risky strategy as that account is already dangerously low.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29709 posts, RR: 84
Reply 148, posted (1 year 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 17657 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 147):
Boeing doesn't bother with crisis management PR, preferring instead to bank on their industry reputation -- this is a risky strategy as that account is already dangerously low.

Yes, their sales sure are in the toilet the past 15 months... Oh, wait...

Seriously, Boeing is about as "doomed" as Apple is.  


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 149, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 17321 times:

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 147):
Boeing doesn't bother with crisis management PR, preferring instead to bank on their industry reputation -- this is a risky strategy as that account is already dangerously low.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 148):
Yes, their sales sure are in the toilet the past 15 months... Oh, wait...

Seriously, Boeing is about as "doomed" as Apple is.

Don't think anyone is saying Boeing is doomed. But there is no doubt its reputation in the industry is lower than its ever been in its history. It is "dangerously low", but not yet doomed. Doomed is when sales would dry up.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29709 posts, RR: 84
Reply 150, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 17338 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sankaps (Reply 149):
But there is no doubt its reputation in the industry is lower than its ever been in its history.

And yet airlines clamor for them to launch the 737 MAX, the 787-10, and the 777X...  


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1322 posts, RR: 8
Reply 151, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 17238 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 149):
Don't think anyone is saying Boeing is doomed. But there is no doubt its reputation in the industry is lower than its ever been in its history. It is "dangerously low", but not yet doomed. Doomed is when sales would dry up.

Was Airbus doomed when the Qantas engine came apart and only through the expertise of 5 or 6 pilots doing a 2 pilot job the loss of several hundred lives was averted? Did everybody stop buying RR engines? Does everybody think their reputations are now shot? Ludicris comment/idea.


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 929 posts, RR: 0
Reply 152, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 17226 times:

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
The inflight testing could be done with monitoring and within 20 minutes of landing. Far better than to have something go awry mid pacific with a load of passengers.

Purposely incinerating a battery while the plane is orbiting Puget Sound is not going to guarantee that nothing will ever happen over the middle of the Pacific. What you want is to demonstrate that if a battery fries over the Pacific safe flight is not compromised. Ground testing is adequate to demonstrate that.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
Isn't it far better to say, it was tested in flight, where most peoples concerns are, than to just say "trust us" and our lab and ground testing.

Actually, Boeing has tested the battery in flight. Nothing went wrong. That's what everybody wants to see. It's like testing, say, the engines in flight. They work fine and everybody's happy. They fail and you got problems.


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Reply 153, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 16654 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
I agree and was hoping for the same.

Why? What do you learn from an in-air test.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
and I don't know whether or not they do these tests in a wind tunnel.

They do not. In fact, your point that the dynamics of a blade off event are different in flight is an argument that they should do that test in flight. That same difference in dynamics does not exist for the battery. What, precisely, is the difference in the conditions the battery faces in flight as compared to on the ground.

The aircraft is full of components that are tested on the ground and not inflight.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
I can think of more reasons than not to do inflight tests for a burning battery.

What are they? The only one I've heard is PR.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
least another x 10 or 100 on the ground and x 100 or 1,000 or whatever in the air,

Huh - why is the new design safer in the air than on the ground. Are you alluding to the fact that, on the ground, shut down, the smoke evacuation system is not working? With the new design that should not be an issue. And where to you come up with 10, 100 and 1000, or 10^7.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
So I don't see inflight safety testing being a risk issue any more than driving to work.

Again - not why not, but why? What do you learn.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
2) Here we are engineering for a known, measurable and predictable condition, no different than the fire and heat coming from the APU. If you don't trust the engineering then there are about a million other things you should be worried about on the airplane.

This is why you don't need to do the flight test.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
3) The inflight testing could be done with monitoring and within 20 minutes of landing. Far better than to have something go awry mid pacific with a load of passengers.

I'd much rather test on the ground where I can instrument and measure and observe much more readily.

Testing in flight makes sense if there is some "in flight factor" that cannot be simulated on the ground. There is none.

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):
Isn't it far better to say, it was tested in flight, where most peoples concerns are, than to just say "trust us" and our lab and ground testing

Testing in flight would clearly be done for PR reasons. Then the Boeing haters (many here) would lambast Boeing for staging a PR stunt that proves nothing. I'm not saying you are one of those - but they are here.

Ultimately - if there was a factor that could not be simulated on the ground, then you'd need to do in-air tests. Anybody know of one? Perhaps turbulence? In fact, you could do that better on the ground on a shake table than by drilling holes in the sky trying to find just the right 'rough spot'. Partial power failure? You can simulate ALL the conditions on the ground with far more authority and repeatability.

Testing is about gathering data and proving design. Do that in the environment that gets you the most data in the most reliable and repeatable manner. In this case, in air testing adds nothing to the equation.



rcair1
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2014 posts, RR: 4
Reply 154, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 16563 times:

Quoting twiga (Reply 144):

4) If for no other reason than from a public and PR perspective wouldn't this instill confidence in the design of the new system. Isn't it far better to say, it was tested in flight, where most peoples concerns are, than to just say "trust us" and our lab and ground testing. Isn't it possible this is sending the subtle message "it's too risky to test inflight".

I think I know what you are trying to say. I think some here just take it the wrong way.

True, flight testing is mostly show and tell and a final feel good for the FAA and the public.

Many in the public don't realize that in a ground test you can subject the test to much more vicious environmental condition than you could in the air without endangering the airplane.

So to make everyone happy, you have to do both.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 153):
Testing in flight makes sense if there is some "in flight factor" that cannot be simulated on the ground. There is none.

Yes, there is one . . . the every present uncertainty principle   Flight testing don't get rid of it completely, but it does make you feel a tiny bit less uncertaint.   

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 929 posts, RR: 0
Reply 155, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 16513 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 154):
True, flight testing is mostly show and tell and a final feel good for the FAA and the public.

If you're talking about flight testing in general then you are dead wrong. If you're talking about purposely burning up a 787 battery during a flight test for "a final feel good for the FAA and the public," you have to keep in mind that flight test is a serious business. No professional flight test operation would consider doing it just for show, and no responsible certificating authority would ever ask them to.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 156, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 16398 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 150):
Quoting sankaps (Reply 149):But there is no doubt its reputation in the industry is lower than its ever been in its history. And yet airlines clamor for them to launch the 737 MAX, the 787-10, and the 777X...
Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 151):
Was Airbus doomed when the Qantas engine came apart and only through the expertise of 5 or 6 pilots doing a 2 pilot job the loss of several hundred lives was averted? Did everybody stop buying RR engines? Does everybody think their reputations are now shot? Ludicris comment/idea.

No. If you read my post carefully, you will see I wrote that while its reputation is hurt, Boeing is NOT doomed, and therefore orders would NOT dry up. Nothing ludicrous about it.

Would anyone seriously want to argue that Boeing's reputation has not taken a hit from the 787 program problems?


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 157, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 16385 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 156):
Would anyone seriously want to argue that Boeing's reputation has not taken a hit from the 787 program problems?

Why would someone insist on posting the same crap that's been going on for 2,000 posts?



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 158, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 16325 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 153):
Ultimately - if there was a factor that could not be simulated on the ground, then you'd need to do in-air tests. Anybody know of one? Perhaps turbulence?

The unknown unknown. A lot gets tested in the air, too, and one of the benefits of that is that you put the object under test into its normal situation in how the aircraft is used. In some cases an unexpected interaction comes up. In other cases it does not - flight testing cannot execute the kind of extreme vibration or long-duration conditions that are much more easily tested in the ground. I do agree that for the battery test, ground testing is probably the sensible engineering thing to do. But I would definitely stop short of claiming that flight testing the battery would only have PR value.

Ok, Ok, I confess. I wanted to see the flight test for the excitement value, and for the possibility that there'd be visible smoke, a last minute save by the pilots and a safe landing. After all, I think this thread series is not long enough, I would enjoy at least a dozen more threads.

Just kidding. I think flight testing would have provided a little bit of incremental assurance that the new system works, but I'm fine without it as well. Hoping for an FAA approval and a quick return of the plane into commercial service!


User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 159, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 16280 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 157):
Why would someone insist on posting the same crap that's been going on for 2,000 posts?

Please note that this thread is entitled "FAA Grounds B787", not “Viva la Boeing 787”. By what rationale do you find postings regarding how this event has impacted Boeing's industry reputation to be immaterial / superfluous Boeing-hating drivel?

[Edited 2013-04-11 09:41:26]

[Edited 2013-04-11 09:46:50]

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29709 posts, RR: 84
Reply 160, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 16228 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 158):
I wanted to see the flight test for the excitement value, and for the possibility that there'd be visible smoke, a last minute save by the pilots and a safe landing.

I would expect there was plenty of smoke vented out of the plane since testing the evacuation system seems to me to be one of the main reasons to perform a flight test.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 161, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 15812 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 157):
Why would someone insist on posting the same crap that's been going on for 2,000 posts?

Because some people keep arguing that this "crap" is not in fact a reality.


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 162, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 15614 times:

Qatar Airways plans to seek compensation from Boeing over the grounding of its 787s, even as the airline remains "optimistic" that the twinjet will be cleared to fly soon.

"I will not be honest if I say we will not take any compensation from Boeing. We will," says the carrier's chief executive Akbar Al Baker today at an event in Chicago marking the airline's inaugural flight to the city on 10 April.

"What will be the compensation? What will be the size, I rather not discuss this in public," he adds.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...m-boeing-for-787-grounding-384574/

Rather low key for AAB, isn't it?


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 163, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 15596 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting art (Reply 162):
Rather low key for AAB, isn't it?

Discussions have already taken place, count on it. Qatar is also sorting through ordering additional Boeing a/c so the "compensation" can take the form of reductions in deposits and/or price of future a/c. As they say, "everything is negotiable."


User currently offlinetwiga From Canada, joined Mar 2013, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 164, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 15562 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 160):
I would expect there was plenty of smoke vented out of the plane since testing the evacuation system seems to me to be one of the main reasons to perform a flight test.

Not quite clear what you mean by 'evacuation system' initially thought about deplaning people but now think you mean 'venting system'. The former could relate to location of vent pipe adjacent to deplaning shutes and bad stuff coming out next to them.


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Reply 165, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 15501 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 158):
The unknown unknown.

Ahh - and there lies the path to infinite test cycles.  
Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 158):
Ok, Ok, I confess. I wanted to see the flight test for the excitement value, and for the possibility that there'd be visible smoke, a last minute save by the pilots and a safe landing. After all, I think this thread series is not long enough, I would enjoy at least a dozen more threads.

Okay - that is the best justification I've heard.   

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 159):
Please note that this thread is entitled "FAA Grounds B787", not “Viva la Boeing 787”. By what rationale do you find postings regarding how this event has impacted Boeing's industry reputation to be immaterial / superfluous Boeing-hating drivel?

Please show me the data where Boeing has taken an industry reputation hit. Surveys, cancellations (related to the grounding) - even stock price - which had been largely flat. Boeing has certainly taken a financial hit - but I'm not seeing a bunch of customers saying "Boeing really sucks."

Yes - a Japanese customer who is all Boeing has said "I'm not sure single supplier makes sense" - but that was brewing before this. In fact, it is silly to think it is related because even if they had 2 suppliers, in this industry it is not like you can 'switch orders' quickly - fulfillment time is much too long. In fact, the argument would have to be - don't have too many of any single model of aircraft because if there is a problem with that a/c you are less impacted. While there is validity to that argument - it is not related to reputation but to risk management - and applies equally to all manfs. Or are you implying that AB or Bombardier or Embraer or (fill in the blank) are fundamentally "better" than Boeing as an a/c designer. If so - I would have to disagree. All these companies have had their successes and failures.

History is replete with cases of product failure where the company reacted well and fixed it - and the net, net was positive. We don't know where that will end up in this case. If the a/c performs well - this will all become a hazy memory. While there are plenty here who will jump in an criticize how Boeing handled this - most of those are, frankly, just thinking they have a better way and are mad that Boeing did not give pay attention to them and give them all they want.

If you want to talk about reputation hits - I think the delays in the 787 program are far worse than the battery problem.

Ultimately - the 787 suffered a problem related to a battery design issue. The issue never caused any significant damage, injuries or death (unlike some others). They proposed a fix that looks to be good - and are beating the timeframe of many of the naysayers in getting into the air. Would it have been better if they never had the problem - sure. Is there damage to their rep- not so sure. Compare this to the rework/repair on the A380. There is far more rework needed there - yet I would argue that AB has not suffered any reputation hit at all (nor should they).

Quoting sankaps (Reply 161):
Because some people keep arguing that this "crap" is not in fact a reality.

One man's crap is another man's fertilizer... I'm not sure what the heck that means but that most of the crap here is not related to a battery failure in an airplane...   



rcair1
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29709 posts, RR: 84
Reply 166, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 15458 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting art (Reply 162):
Qatar Airways plans to seek compensation from Boeing over the grounding of its 787s, even as the airline remains "optimistic" that the twinjet will be cleared to fly soon.

"What will be the compensation? What will be the size, I rather not discuss this in public," AAB adds.

Another 777X launch customer?

[Edited 2013-04-11 17:29:59]

User currently onlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 702 posts, RR: 0
Reply 167, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days ago) and read 15344 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 165):
Please show me the data where Boeing has taken an industry reputation hit. Surveys, cancellations (related to the grounding) - even stock price - which had been largely flat. Boeing has certainly taken a financial hit - but I'm not seeing a bunch of customers saying "Boeing really sucks."

It's reputation will have taken a hit. Airlines want at least a duopoly, they would hate to have only Airbus or Beoing to go to for the planes, both companies make competitive products. Boeing's reputation will have taken a hit, it is unavoidable with the delays then the grounding.