Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 Set To Fly In A Week  
User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2245 posts, RR: 26
Posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12039 times:

Good news.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...a-boeing-fix-idUSBRE93L10520130423

"Dreamliner set to fly in a week as Boeing fixes battery"


UNITED We Stand
47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4237 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12001 times:

So what happened to the ET aircraft that were supposed to fly today? Did they jump the gun or was that wishful thinking that was on these forums and only these forums.


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinetonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1437 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11886 times:

Well apparently the Qatar o e in LHR flew back to DOH today!


My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31011 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11680 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting brilondon (Reply 1):
So what happened to the ET aircraft that were supposed to fly today? Did they jump the gun or was that wishful thinking that was on these forums and only these forums.

ET had loaded 787 revenue flights into their scheduling system, however I am guessing the installation is taking a bit longer than ET originally thought.


User currently offlineA36001 From Australia, joined Sep 2012, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9866 times:

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer but: What happens if this fix does not work?  

User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9845 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting A36001 (Reply 4):
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer but: What happens if this fix does not work?  

It's going to work.

If it doesn't, the grounding is reinstated, it will be much harder to get a re-re certification from the FAA and Boeing's massive gamble on the 787 would be in serious trouble.


User currently offlineUnited727 From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 405 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9843 times:

Quoting A36001 (Reply 4):
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer but: What happens if this fix does not work?  

Let's not even go there!



Looking for the impossible way to save those dying breeds!!!!
User currently offlinedavidho1985 From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2012, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9528 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 5):

Quoting A36001 (Reply 4):
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer but: What happens if this fix does not work?

It's going to work.

If it doesn't, the grounding is reinstated, it will be much harder to get a re-re certification from the FAA and Boeing's massive gamble on the 787 would be in serious trouble.

Agree, incident related to 787, especially related to the battery will be the last thing Boeing want to see.


User currently offlineAlpage From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2013, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8525 times:

Really shocked and stunned with Boeing so called "solution" of the battery problem..Basically they didn't solve anything...they just fire seal boxed the whole battery set...so if (Highly probable) it burns...it burns..at least doesn't bring down the plane. Absolute Awful , Disgraceful and Incompetent !!!!

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31011 posts, RR: 86
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day ago) and read 8141 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Let's keep the discussion about the fixes in the appropriate threads, shall we?



The FAA today has formally lifted the AD grounding the 787, allowing UA to resume revenue flights at their discretion. EASA, JTSB and other agencies are expected to follow shortly:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...g-dreamliner-idUSBRE93O0NI20130425


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13141 posts, RR: 100
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day ago) and read 8060 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Alpage (Reply 8):
Really shocked and stunned with Boeing so called "solution"

Why? The changes to the charger reduce the change of a problem.

The lower charging voltage reduce the risk of a thermal over-run.
The increased discharge voltage reduce the risk of a thermal over-run.
Fixing the wiring issue will prevent batteries being fully discharged which dramatically ages them.

By standard aerospace practices, Boeing has reduces the change of a thermal over-run by a huge amount. I estimate by at least a factor of a thousand. By putting the battery in a box, the change of an issue is less than 10^-7. That meets aerospace requirements. No plane is perfect. But I know in 2020 that horses will transport people fewer miles than the 787 and kill multiple times the people. Don't get me started on motorcycles...

This is battery 'wear and tear' 101. The issue has been solved 'well enough.' Perfection is not required.

I'm more concerned with the corrosion being found with some of the new aluminum. But my concerns don't matter if the chance of a crash remains less than 10^-7.

Quoting Alpage (Reply 8):
t burns..at least doesn't bring down the plane.

As the recent cargo hold fire on the SQ flight proved, real fires unfortunately happen; this is but a thermal runaway which is far more mild. Aircraft do not have to be perfect, just to have a lower chance of killing you on the flight than your commute to the flight. (By a HUGE factor in fact.)

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1057 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day ago) and read 7934 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10):
I'm more concerned with the corrosion being found with some of the new aluminum. But my concerns don't matter if the chance of a crash remains less than 10^-7.

What's up with the Aluminum? Does this require another thread?


User currently offlineAlpage From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2013, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day ago) and read 7911 times:

Of course...the passengers wouldn't mind at all to have the plane's battery set on fire underneath their seats right by their luggage.... but as stated above "The issue has been solved 'well enough."

User currently onlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4106 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day ago) and read 7818 times:

Quoting Alpage (Reply 8):

Really shocked and stunned with Boeing so called "solution" of the battery problem..Basically they didn't solve anything...they just fire seal boxed the whole battery set...so if (Highly probable) it burns...it burns..at least doesn't bring down the plane. Absolute Awful , Disgraceful and Incompetent !!!!

Can you please explain why it is highly probable that the battery will burn, or why fully containing any (unlikely) fire event is disgraceful?

Or why redesigning the layout of the battery to reduce the risk of thermal runaway to an insignificant level is incompetent?

I hate to break it to you, but that is how all machines are designed. Nothing is 100% safe. Boeing's solution is as good as one could expect given the investigation into the fire events has not yielded any clear root cause. Or let me guess, is the NTSB also disgraceful and incompetent?

 


User currently offlinegoosebayguy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day ago) and read 7630 times:

I'm not going to fly on a plane whose battery will catch fire. No matter that they will send the fumes overboard. One day the battery will explode and I look forwards to seeing the repair for that.

User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2245 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day ago) and read 7459 times:

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 14):
I'm not going to fly on a plane whose battery will catch fire. No matter that they will send the fumes overboard. One day the battery will explode and I look forwards to seeing the repair for that.

Nickel-Cadiums can also catch fire and explode. So you will never fly on most airplanes ? More room for the rest of us.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlineAlpage From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2013, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 23 hours ago) and read 7010 times:

Indeed FriendlySkies nothing is 100 % safe and I agree that's how machines are design. But a battery set that will burn within the 1 years is well bellow the standards. And with more than 800 planes sold that will be a lot burned up batteries to replace. The absurdity of the situation is Boeing not solving what's causing the battery to heat up and burn and "patching it over" with a "sloppy solution". Boeing's press release of "never figure the causes of the fire" is code for "The design of the planes is flawed". Very similar to the disaster when Microsoft launched Windows 95...and only solve it 3 years later with the Windows 98. I am not calling NTSC incompetent , they just don't want 2 words in a plane, smoke and Fire. Even if Boeing came up with "fire team in the cargo haul" solution they may have accepted. Also I don't know how much "political and economic" pressure their are under to let the "Dreamliner" fly.

User currently offlinetonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1437 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 6710 times:

Quoting Alpage (Reply 16):

Albage, the occurrence that brought down the BA B777 at LHR was never fully explained either. Would it stop you getting on one?

I'll be flying on the B787 very soon. I'm not worried!



My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 6676 times:

Quoting tonystan (Reply 17):
Albage, the occurrence that brought down the BA B777 at LHR was never fully explained either. Would it stop you getting on one?

AFAIK, it was fully explained and the root cause (indented ring within the fuel transfer system in the engine or something to that effect causing ice build-up in certain conditions) identified and fixed.


User currently offlinetonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1437 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 6595 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 18):

It was assumed but no evidence ever existed!



My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
User currently offlinehannahpa From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 128 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 6526 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

We can do without the fingerpointing. Save that for private messages, please.

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 6505 times:

Quoting tonystan (Reply 19):
It was assumed but no evidence ever existed!

Well, that is true as the evidence (ice) would have melted away by the time investigators got to the engines. But they managed to replicate the hypothesis in their investigation, and also confirm that the fix prevented this from occurring.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13141 posts, RR: 100
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 21 hours ago) and read 6258 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

And a list of risks:
http://www.besthealthdegrees.com/health-risks/

You change of dying, per hour, only goes up 25% flying than playing a computer game or a board game! That is the level of scrutiny a plane goes through. I'm not going to answer those that ignore how the statistical probability of a battery fire has dropped by three orders of magnitude! The batteries will have a far gentler charging cycle, will be charged less and drained less. Each step extends a batteries life.

Or put another way, if I could charge my cell phone 20% more, discharge it 20% more, and charge it at 125 of the current rate, its chance of a thermal over-run would go up 1000 fold. Hence why there is a little chip in the batter to prevent all three of those (and the older batteries without chips over-ran).

I have many more things to worry about. I'd fly a 787 tomorrow if someone would pay for the trip.

Quoting tonystan (Reply 17):
Albage, the occurrence that brought down the BA B777 at LHR was never fully explained either. Would it stop you getting on one?

And the A330/A340 pitot problems haven't gone away 100% either. That actually killed a planeload of people after a few scares:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ral_aviation/print.main?id=5725754

But what is the chance? Can training reduce the impact? For both the batteries and the pitot tubes, the answer is   

The 737 has had numerous rudder issues.
The A380 has the wing crack issue.
The A320 has a wing corrosion issue.
The MD-80 had a 'jack screw' issue.
The A300 had the over-torquing of the tail create an issue...
The DC-10 had two hydraulic lines that could be damaged concurrently.
The MD-11 can be tricky to land due to the smaller horizontal stabilizer
The 727 was tricky to land too (but was extreamly safe as pilots didn't take for granted landing it).
The 747 is a bear to find all the places where corrosion can take hold.


In other words, all planes have problems. Are the problems controlled to the point of less than 10^-7 fatal crashes per hour? If the answer is yes, move on as at that threshold

For example, you are three times more likely to die driving to the airport than during the flight!
And the most riskiest part of the whole trip is crossing the street...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpo...tation_safety_in_the_United_States

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 11):
What's up with the Aluminum? Does this require another thread?

Another thread would be appropriate, but I know only enough to be dangerous. Basically, high salt environments see more corrosion than testing predicted. It isn't that they didn't test with salt, but rather they didn't test the right 'wetness' with the right balance of other 'seaside contaminants.' Flights of over 2 hours dry out the wings enough that the problem goes away. It is a tricky issue. Best solved by going to CFRP.  

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1617 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 21 hours ago) and read 6232 times:

Quoting A36001 (Reply 4):

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer but: What happens if this fix does not work?  

We all move Down under and fly F-35's.   



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2133 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 21 hours ago) and read 6198 times:

Quoting Alpage (Reply 16):
"patching it over" with a "sloppy solution".

As with anything that we do (speaking from a designer stand point) a "sloppy solution" is better than no solution at all.

For all those 3 years waiting for Windows 98, much productivity was done using Windows 95.

And although Boeing stated that the current fix is the final solution, I would not bet on it. Perhaps the approach of containment along with the electronic tweaks, is the final solution, I would venture to guess that in the not too distance future, the containment box will be integrated into the battery itself. 150 lbs is a big carrot for looking at re-packaging the battery.

As for not flying the plane because of the battery, I would recommend you use a more likely excuse of not flying the plane because of potential bird ingestion in the engines. After all, you'll more likely get a plane in trouble with a bird ingestion than with a 787 battery fire (with the fix). Somebody can probably dig up the statistic of how many bird ingestion we get in a year for large commercial airliners . . . some of us will definitely be surprised.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
25 PlaneAdmirer : You and I, and I hope most people on this site, have very different hopes.
26 Post contains images bikerthai : When they started the 787, I was hoping to see them do a repair of the composite fuselage. Well, I have not seen any video of the 787 battery fix and
27 sankaps : I agree, if the problem has been controlled to this level, then it is as good as fixed. However it remains to be seen if the actual incident rate liv
28 nimool : QTR's 787 flew back to DOH this week on Wednesday (i think). Anyway doesn't matter when they're coming back in full service the good this is that we k
29 Alpage : Didn't anwer my question about the core battery problem and just "patched over it". Kinda wondering whether there is a "cultural" pattern here...
30 bellancacf : @ Alpage: It may be that you're running up against "thread fatigue", because there must be 1500-odd posts dealing with the issues you mention. I think
31 Post contains links zkokq : Boeing has shown there was a multitude of things they have done to decrease failure rate http://www.nbcnews.com/business/boei...full-787-battery-fix-
32 Post contains images tommy767 : Yet it's quite amazing how the 777 has been around for 18 years with little to no issues
33 Alpage : When you read the NBC's article it's funny to see NO ONE officially from Boeing to speak about this "fix" and "so called sources" secretly denying veh
34 kanban : Maybe instead of reading (or viewing) NBC's article, one should review over 3000 posts that included detailed explanations, Boeing videos and present
35 Alpage : Quoting kanban (Reply 34) Maybe instead of reading (or viewing) NBC's article, one should review over 3000 posts that included detailed explanations,
36 waly777 : @ Alpage, you should go and read a little bit more about the repair process and design. Your posts come off as rather ignorant on a topic that has bee
37 zkokq : I suggest that you read one of the many 787 threads which cover this topic in great depth.
38 RIXrat : Alpage, I contribute to this forum materials and comments when I think that I am qualified to do so, and not to build up my posts. I have not contribu
39 kanban : Among the commenters you dismiss are 2 Boeing engineers associated with the 787 program, a third engineer associated with other programs, a Fire Mars
40 Post contains links PHX787 : Unnamed insiders telling me NH should have it airborne next week for test flights. Japan regulators already gave them the green lights to resume fligh
41 sankaps : This is just offensive. Everyone not on "Boeing's side" of the discussion that is driven by Boeing engineers (who are clearly not omnipotent or omnis
42 Bthebest : Just read an article on Flight Global (sign-in required) that says: "Although not contractually obligated to compensate airlines for schedule disrupti
43 SonomaFlyer : It's more nuanced than that. The contract language is tight enough to allow Boeing to limit compensation to the letter of the contract. This would pr
44 Post contains images bikerthai : Yes, Kanban, calling someone a troll is somewhat offensive to some. There are more elegant words to use . . . Shakespeare has many words for the purp
45 sankaps : Biker, even skeptics like me are happy to go along with the solutiion if it works! I also wrote earlier in the thread: Being called a troll for havin
46 Post contains images kanban : please note the sentence below that included you.... OK, so some find 'trolls' distasteful as a moniker, please substitute any one of the following s
47 CALTECH : Last week the FAA approved Boeing's design for modifications to the 787 battery system. On Tuesday, United ferried one of their 787 aircraft from LAX
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
787 On Track To Fly In December posted Tue Nov 10 2009 13:29:38 by Mirrodie
BA To Fly 5 Times A Week To Shanghai In The Summer posted Sat Apr 30 2005 14:00:42 by Buckieboy
'Biggest Airport' Set To Open In Beijing In 2017 posted Thu Oct 11 2012 10:53:39 by rmoore7734
Delta Flight Attendant Unfit To Fly In BUF posted Wed Apr 4 2012 09:08:14 by vulindlela744
Oversold! 2 Pax Allowed To Fly In Washroom On PIA posted Fri Feb 17 2012 18:39:02 by YYZAMS
FlyBE Given Clearence To Fly In Future Ash Clouds posted Mon May 17 2010 14:08:57 by gilesdavies
It Takes Two Pilots To Fly In Russia? posted Wed Mar 31 2010 09:08:19 by HAL
ANA’s Cargo Hub Set To Open In Naha (Okinawa) posted Tue Oct 27 2009 07:40:58 by Yeogeo
LH Seeks Nod To Fly In A380 Into India posted Mon Jul 20 2009 07:52:52 by Aviationbuff
New Airline Set To Fly: Pet Airways posted Thu Jul 9 2009 11:41:08 by AC888YOW