777ER
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 9852
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:23 pm

Link to previous thread FAA Grounds B787 Part 7 (by 777ER Jan 30 2013 in Civil Aviation)
 
gesubsea
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:10 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:49 pm

I know this thread has been focusing alot on the battery situation. But, found an article over the weekend addressing concerns by the FAA on the 787's suitability concerning long hours over water related to emergency landing sites. It speaks specifically to a possible IAH-Auckland service by ANZ. Didn't these concerns come to light with the 777 during its beginning's as well and resolved with E-TOPS???

"The US's Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] has been monitoring the Dreamliner's long haul reliability even before a number of aircraft malfunctions hit the headlines this week, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal.

The tighter oversight and potential extension of FAA restrictions on how far 787s can fly from suitable emergency landing strips could affect flights into New Zealand and Air New Zealand's use of the 10 787 aircraft it has ordered from Boeing.

After several years of production delays Air New Zealand is supposed to take delivery of its first 787 in the second half of 2014, and the airline said it was too early for it to comment on any reliability issues with the craft.

The WSJ specifically mentioned the long-haul, trans-Pacific route from Houston to Auckland as one which could be in danger from tighter regulations."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...reamliner-NZ-US-flights-questioned
 
markalot
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:07 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:21 pm

Forgive me if this was posted before.

First, an article describing how Boeing wants to get test flights back in the air for more battery testing, which was posted earlier. http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...8074_dreamlinertestflightsxml.html

I note the following:

However, the initial flights will simply gather data on how the battery is affected by changes in temperature during the flight cycle as well as the impact of vibrations during landing and takeoff.

According to an industry source, one theory Boeing is investigating is that moisture getting inside the battery may have contributed to the recent incidents.


Second is another article describing how many of the FAA safety checks were outsourced to Boeing.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020288737_787faaxml.html

The tests on the lithium-ion batteries at the center of Boeing’s unprecedented crisis were conducted by the company. And the people the FAA designated on its behalf to ensure that the batteries conformed to its safety regulations also were Boeing employees.

There may be sound reasons for outsourcing the checks, but the tests mentioned in the first quote above sound like something that should have already been done. I'm not qualified to make any actual judgements here, but I believe going forward we may see some changes to the "safety checks outsourcing" process.
M a r k
 
na
Posts: 9128
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:22 pm

After 3 weeks grounding what are the best estimates, there must be one, how long will this affair last, when will we see the 787 in the air again?

Quoting GEsubsea (Reply 1):

Air NZ should get themselves some decent Quads 
 
hkcanadaexpat
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:33 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:08 pm

"On Monday, Boeing asked the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for permission to conduct Dreamliner test flights, suggesting it is making progress in finding a solution to the battery problems. Japan's Civil Aviation Bureau said it was told about the Boeing request by the FAA."

Source: http://www.4-traders.com/GS-YUASA-CO...r-profits-not-due-to-787-16009240/
 
servantleader
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:17 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:44 pm

JTSB has determined that the Li-ion battery that forced the ANA emergency landing went into thermal runaway -- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure. Unless a definitive root cause and clear fix can be determined post haste the current Li-ion battery system will not be certified airworthy -- and that spells disaster for Boeing.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7468
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:53 pm

Quoting GEsubsea (Reply 1):
Didn't these concerns come to light with the 777 during its beginning's as well and resolved with E-TOPS???

I think this is just the normal evaluation to grant ETOPS for a new airplane. The 787 entered commercial service with ETOPS 180 but if you need more the plane has to prove its reliability. And if it proves too unreliable (usually the engines being shut down too often) the 180 minutes ETOPS can be suspended.

Quoting markalot (Reply 2):
but the tests mentioned in the first quote above sound like something that should have already been done

They may have been conducted by the battery manufacturer for the certification of the battery, with another aircraft.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
keegd76
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:39 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:02 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
Quoting markalot (Reply 2):
but the tests mentioned in the first quote above sound like something that should have already been done

They may have been conducted by the battery manufacturer for the certification of the battery, with another aircraft.

Even if correct I'd be amazed if Boeing didn't perform their own tests with the battery on the aircraft that it was actually going into. Its one thing for the manufacturer to say the battery works in a plane, but Boeing needs to prove it works in 'their' plane.

To do otherwise is just asking for trouble and quite possibly illegal.
Nothing comes down faster than a VTOL aircraft upside down.
 
ZB052
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:13 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:18 pm

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 5):
JTSB has determined that the Li-ion battery that forced the ANA emergency landing went into thermal runaway -- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure. Unless a definitive root cause and clear fix can be determined post haste the current Li-ion battery system will not be certified airworthy -- and that spells disaster for Boeing.

Source please?
 
 
ZB052
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:13 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:28 pm

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 9):

Many thanks ServantLeader! Apologies for asking, but after so many of the posts in the previous 7 threads all containing conjecture with no concrete evidence/press story, i felt i had to ask!
 
BEG2IAH
Posts: 853
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:42 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:12 pm

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 5):
JTSB has determined that the Li-ion battery that forced the ANA emergency landing went into thermal runaway -- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure. Unless a definitive root cause and clear fix can be determined post haste the current Li-ion battery system will not be certified airworthy -- and that spells disaster for Boeing.
Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 9):
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaki...asp?id=31536&icid=4&d_str=20130205

I don't see how's this breaking news except that some jurnalists were asleep for 4 weeks.

We have 8 full threads discussing issues in detail and after reading them your post seems totally out of place and time.

[Edited 2013-02-05 08:23:19]
 
ZB052
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:13 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:27 pm

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 11):
I don't see how's this breaking news except that some jurnalists were asleep for 4 weeks.

We have 8 full threads discussion issues in detail and after reading them your post seems totally out of place and time.

Erm, sorry for nit-picking, but isn't this updated information from the JTSB? Looking at the article linked, plus google searching reveals other news agencies (EG WSJ) reporting this? Appears there was a press briefing today (Tuesday)? Therefore your comments above seem a little scathing, not to mention a little rude?
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7468
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:38 pm

Quoting keegd76 (Reply 7):
Even if correct I'd be amazed if Boeing didn't perform their own tests with the battery on the aircraft that it was actually going into. Its one thing for the manufacturer to say the battery works in a plane, but Boeing needs to prove it works in 'their' plane.

Well they're not going to test every screw and piece of equipment specifically. They did a testing/certification campaign and the battery had to have performed as expected during that campaign.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
rcair1
Crew
Posts: 1109
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:44 pm

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 5):
JTSB has determined that the Li-ion battery that forced the ANA emergency landing went into thermal runaway -- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure. Unless a definitive root cause and clear fix can be determined post haste the current Li-ion battery system will not be certified airworthy -- and that spells disaster for Boeing.

I'm afraid this is not really news. Even if they did determine it went into thermal runaway (and I'm not sure that is a new determination), designing for that event is a requirement for the containment system on the a/c. The system must be designed to manage a battery that goes into thermal runaway - because you cannot guarantee no battery ever will.

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 5):
- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure. Unless a definitive root cause and clear fix can be determined post haste the current Li-ion battery system will not be certified airworthy -- and that spells disaster for Boeing.

It is important to note that this part of the post is editorial by the poster. It does not appear in the article cite.

What the JSTB said was:
"Japanese officials probing the emergency landing of a Boeing Dreamliner said Tuesday its lithium-ion battery was damaged by a build up of heat that resulted in uncontrollably high temperatures.
"The battery was destroyed in a process called thermal runaway, in which the heat builds up to the point where it becomes uncontrollable,'' said a Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) official.
"But it is still not known what caused the uncontrollable high temperature,'' he added, AFP reports."

Pretty much everybody here believed that there was a thermal runaway event in both batteries. We also know the 787 system was designed with that potentiality in mind.
The pertinent questions are:
1- What cause the thermal runaways and does it represent a problem that causes higher than expected occurances.
2- Did the containment system work sufficiently - or are modifications required.

My opinion ... OPINION.. is
1- we don't know - but it looks more like cell manf problems to me (opinion!) at this point.
2- I think the system did work - however, for PR and regulatory reasons Boeing will improve it.
rcair1
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5851
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:15 pm

Now IATA is getting worried about lithium batteries:

"AIRLINES could face tough new curbs on the carriage of all lithium batteries — including those used in everyday gadgets"

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/.../Tech_and_Media/article1206566.ece
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:15 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 15):
My opinion ... OPINION.. is
1- we don't know - but it looks more like cell manf problems to me (opinion!) at this point.

Or BMS. The NTSB said early on that the circuit boards were too damaged to provide useful data. JTSB (with an NTSB representative) have been at Kanto (BMS supplier) for 10+ days now, with no news. If the BMS were "exonerated", one would have expected news by now (the BCU was "exonerated" within a few days).

The one thing we do know is that there was a short in one cell of the JL battery.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
blueflyer
Posts: 3624
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:22 pm

Quoting GEsubsea (Reply 1):
After several years of production delays Air New Zealand is supposed to take delivery of its first 787 in the second half of 2014

I would assume if ETOPS performance is so critical to Air New Zealand is part of the contract. Does this give them a way out if Boeing hasn't addressed any shortcoming to the FAA's satisfaction by some arbitrary deadline, like 6 months or a year before delivery?

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 15):
we don't know - but it looks more like cell manf problems to me (opinion!) at this point.

I thought manufacturing defect had been ruled out already.

Quoting markalot (Reply 2):
I'm not qualified to make any actual judgements here, but I believe going forward we may see some changes to the "safety checks outsourcing" process.

I suppose it depends on how much certification did the FAA "outsource"? A division of my employer is subject to regulatory overnight even though no one dies if they screw up ever. The regulators are not present when they generate data during testing, but they must submit the raw data along with their conclusions, and I am told it is clear the regulators do look at the data from time to time based on the follow-up questions they send.

If the FAA follows the same process, I don't see anything wrong. If on the other hand, Boeing is basically free to say "trust us it works" even for major components and the FAA accepts that and moves on, it is indeed more problematic
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has no clothes.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 977
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:25 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 18):
Or BMS. The NTSB said early on that the circuit boards were too damaged to provide useful data. JTSB (with an NTSB representative) have been at Kanto (BMS supplier) for 10+ days now, with no news. If the BMS were "exonerated", one would have expected news by now (the BCU was "exonerated" within a few days).

Or contactors. Or contactors and humidity and vibration...
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:26 pm

Quoting na (Reply 3):
After 3 weeks grounding what are the best estimates, there must be one, how long will this affair last, when will we see the 787 in the air again?

The only time frame I read is if they decide now to replace the battery system by a conventinal one as used on the 777, the certification of the system and software would take about one year. Every else can be shorter or longer.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:59 pm

per http://avherald.com/h?article=45c377c5&opt=6144 here is the latest JTSB addition

On Feb 5th 2013 the JTSB released a second progress report in Japanese reporting that all 8 cells of the damaged battery, nominal voltage 29.6V, 75 Ah capacity at 28.5kg/63 lbs, showed thermal damage before the thermal runaway, particularly cells 3 and 6 are damaged. The positive electrode of cell 3 shows substantial damage and a hole, the internal wiring has melted down.

there is a picture of the specific damage.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:17 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 22):
The positive electrode of cell 3 shows substantial damage and a hole

Interesting. In the JL battery it was cell 6, also positive electrode.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 19):
I thought manufacturing defect had been ruled out already.

No. All that the NTSB has said is that the main (undamaged) JL battery showed no signs of anomalies. The damaged APU battery showed evidence of a short. Today the JTSB announced it had found the same thing in the damaged NH battery. The only thing that appears to have been ruled out (at this stage) is the charger manufactured by Securaplane - the NTSB reported that the BCU from the JL aircraft had no significant anomalies.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
starrion
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:19 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:09 pm

Shifting gears for a minute:

Are the airlines preparing their aircraft for long-term storage yet? I believe that there can be significant issues with planes if they sit for months without preparation. I would presume that having the planes sit for four or more months would be an issue.
Knowledge Replaces Fear
 
HNL2BOS
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:08 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:37 pm

With these threads getting huge as they have it is hard to gather information on what has been said and has happened (from airlines and manufactures). I wish we could get an update only thread going.

All in all, Im guessing we're not going to see the 787s back in service in time for my BOS -> NRT flight at the end of April?

[Edited 2013-02-05 13:38:46]
 
jporterfi
Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:25 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:46 pm

Quoting hnl2bos (Reply 25):
All in all, Im guessing we're not going to see the 787s back in service in time for my BOS -> NRT flight at the end of April?

I'm almost certain that the 787 will not be back in service by the end of April. JL will probably switch that flight to a 777.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1204
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:50 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 15):
My opinion ... OPINION.. is
1- we don't know - but it looks more like cell manf problems to me (opinion!) at this point.

Or, cells that size can't be manufactured to the degree of reliability required yet.
 
ComeAndGo
Posts: 810
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:06 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 21):
there is a picture of the specific damage.

There's also a picture of a brown ooze mark on the fuselage - fluid venting in flight.
 
ComeAndGo
Posts: 810
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:10 pm

what's interesting is that the JTSB claims that all cells overheated before the cell 3 + 6 runaway event. In the layout photo you can see that cell 3 + 6 are sandwiched between the other cells. So cells 3 + 6 are getting heat from both sides. The other cells get heat from only one side.
 
LY4XELD
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 5:14 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:39 pm

The Seattle Times is now saying that FAA delegation is to blame for all of this. IMHO, the Seattle Times has been extremely critical of Boeing and the 787 issues. I find it premature to blame the certification process for these issues.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020288737_787faaxml.html
That's why we're here.
 
cornutt
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:57 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:07 am

From the article LY4XELD quoted: "Dreikorn has been a paid expert in a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by Boeing employees in Wichita, Kan., claiming manufacturing defects in some 737-Next Generation planes. "

The phrase "paid expert" is a euphemism for "professional plaintiff". This tells you all you need to know about this entire article. What they're talking about is the DER system. If you want to get rid of that, you may as well just nationalize Boeing. We've already seen the results of Government Motors -- who wants to see Government Airplanes? Not me.

Also, while I'm here...

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 5):
JTSB has determined that the Li-ion battery that forced the ANA emergency landing went into thermal runaway -- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure.

Last I checked, the aircraft is intact, and everyone who was on board is still alive. So by definition, it was not a catastrophic event.
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:22 am

Just wondering... why don't they just change the batteries? I.e. put in a different type of battery, for example the same that they put in all of the other planes they've been building for decades. One that doesn't have a track record of going up in flames every 10 minutes or so. Just put in the 777 batteries and forget it, no?
 
cornutt
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:57 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:28 am

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 33):
Just wondering... why don't they just change the batteries?

It would have to be a lot bigger, and wouldn't fit in the space.
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:54 am

Quoting cornutt (Reply 34):
It would have to be a lot bigger, and wouldn't fit in the space.

I'd say so be it, one less container or whatever, but this is proven technology and that would make it safe enough to fly. But I understand if there is no space then maybe that's not possible, maybe they could find space for more batteries somewhere else as a temporary measure. Then they can work on designing better batteries and certifying them further down the line. I just read in one of these articles that lithium ion fires are almost impossible to extinguish until the electrolyte is consumed, they burn at a very high temperature and that the containment system proved to be insufficient to stop the fire from spreading to the electronics bay with all of the plane's control system which "could have disabled critical flight controls had the fire occurred in midair". Damn! That's pretty scary! And so passengers have actually been flying over the Atlantic in this thing, with this time bomb beneath their feet placed right next to the electronics bay and flight control systems. It's lucky that when these batteries did go off, the planes were either parked or able to land quickly - it could have been a lot worse, starting with a search for a wreckage and ending with the 787 programme cancelled.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3937
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:05 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):

I think this is just the normal evaluation to grant ETOPS for a new airplane. The 787 entered commercial service with ETOPS 180 but if you need more the plane has to prove its reliability. And if it proves too unreliable (usually the engines being shut down too often) the 180 minutes ETOPS can be suspended.

The CSeries, for example, is supposed to have ETOPS 120 by first flight and ETOPS 180 by EIS.
What the...?
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 1333
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:20 am

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 33):
Just wondering... why don't they just change the batteries? I.e. put in a different type of battery, for example the same that they put in all of the other planes they've been building for decades. One that doesn't have a track record of going up in flames every 10 minutes or so. Just put in the 777 batteries and forget it, no?

In commercial airplane design, there's no simple way to "just" do something.

It has been noted in this series of threads that to change the type of batteries used would take about a year to design and certify.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word, and doesn't even make sense.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19571
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:52 am

Quoting cornutt (Reply 32):
The phrase "paid expert" is a euphemism for "professional plaintiff".

No. It means that he's a paid expert witness. Believe it or not, lawyers and judges are not engineers (or physicians or scientists, etc.). So in cases where there is highly technical information that is relevant, expert witnesses are necessary to decipher this information for the judge, attorneys, and jury.

Quoting cornutt (Reply 32):
We've already seen the results of Government Motors -- who wants to see Government Airplanes?

What, they didn't go out of business and are now making a profit? Horrors!

HOWEVER... I don't understand the outrage that Boeing conducted their own tests. Do taxpayers want the FAA to pay for the certification process?

There's a lot else wrong with the article, including the assertion that the FAA somehow required the battery to never go into thermal runaway. We've established that that is an impossible requirement. The FAA required that such runaways be contained.

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 33):
Just wondering... why don't they just change the batteries? I.e. put in a different type of battery, for example the same that they put in all of the other planes they've been building for decades. One that doesn't have a track record of going up in flames every 10 minutes or so. Just put in the 777 batteries and forget it, no?

*It would be larger and heavier and require redesign of the space where it is located
*It would require extensive redesign of the entire electrical system
*There is no battery currently available off-the-shelf that would satisfy the requirements
*Doing this would mean either scrapping or extensively modifying all 50 frames in service, in addition to a re-design and re-certification process that could last over a year.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:06 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):
*It would be larger and heavier and require redesign of the space where it is located
*It would require extensive redesign of the entire electrical system
*There is no battery currently available off-the-shelf that would satisfy the requirements
*Doing this would mean either scrapping or extensively modifying all 50 frames in service, in addition to a re-design and re-certification process that could last over a year.

OK, I see this is a lot worse worse than I thought. Looks like whatever they do the 787 will be out of service for a long time, because the setup they have now definitely isn't safe. What a disaster! They should listen to this Tesla guy, he seems like someone that knows what he's talking about and perhaps his engineers could help design a solution.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5119
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:11 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):
No. It means that he's a paid expert witness. Believe it or not, lawyers and judges are not engineers (or physicians or scientists, etc.). So in cases where there is highly technical information that is relevant, expert witnesses are necessary to decipher this information for the judge, attorneys, and jury.

And they are not all whores. Engineers, in particular, are always the guys I want to talk to first in a lawsuit, if they are available, because their instinct is to tell management to shove it, and to tell me the truth. They, as a general rule, find it very difficult even to shade the truth. This is useful whether they work for my client (finding the holes in our own case) or the opponent (finding the holes in their case).

I had a case once involving a wrongful death claim arising from a police shooting -- cop shot and killed a drug dealer during a raid, drug dealer's family sued. There were competing experts, both well-regarded medical examiners, who had very different theories about what position the decedent was in, and accordingly what he was doing, when he was shot.

The deposition of the plaintiff's expert (my opponent) went something like this: "Have you read Dr. MyGuy's report?" "No." "Here it is. Kindly read through it and tell me what you disagree with." Expert proceeds to read through the report. "Let me see that X-Ray...Let me see that picture...Let me see that other X-Ray...............Yeah, Joey is right." [Pause while defense counsel tries to decide how stupid it is to ask the next question or whether we should all go home right now. Can't resist:] "So you concur with Dr. MyGuy's opinion as stated in his report." "Yes." [One more, then my side should leave good enough alone and RUN:] "So you are withdrawing your opinion as stated in your report." "Absolutely." [Sound of door opening quickly and slamming behind defense counsel who were smart enough to get out of there with their winning testimony.]

That exchange was so heartening, and demonstrated how men of science CAN put the truth above their own ego.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11728
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:36 am

Late edit: I hope topic eight has much better news.

Quoting GEsubsea (Reply 1):
The WSJ specifically mentioned the long-haul, trans-Pacific route from Houston to Auckland as one which could be in danger from tighter regulations."

Umm... ETOPS is definitely at risk of being reduced. This isn't news, is the statistics. That is something I brought up early with the 788 issues.

Quoting na (Reply 3):
After 3 weeks grounding what are the best estimates, there must be one, how long will this affair last, when will we see the 787 in the air again?

I started with a 3 month estimate. I was blasted for it... but this sort of issue takes time.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 15):
because you cannot guarantee no battery ever will.

   Its just the statistics of how often...

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 20):
The only time frame I read is if they decide now to replace the battery system by a conventinal one as used on the 777, the certification of the system and software would take about one year.

The 787 could fly less than a year. There are options that would require faster replacement and limit ETOPS, but it could be done faster.

Lightsaber

[Edited 2013-02-05 20:37:19]
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19571
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:50 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 42):
I started with a 3 month estimate.

You sticking to it? Or do you wanna push it higher?   

Here's my nightmare scenario. 787 gets cleared for flight after whatever fixes and then... another issue bad enough for another grounding. At that point, I think the 787 program would likely terminate and Boeing would have to reorganize, possibly through Ch. 11.

Let's just hope it remains a nightmare.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:55 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 42):
Umm... ETOPS is definitely at risk of being reduced. This isn't news, is the statistics. That is something I brought up early with the 788 issues.

Ok Elephant in the room- this has been bugging me since the grounding.

Most ETOPS-180 routes are close to a great circle route around the shorelines of the north atlantic and north pacific, right?

And The current flights used indeed follow these routes.

What is the risk of etops being lowered on the 788 to down to 180? (unless it is already at 180, which means I just asked the stupidest question ever)

I need a little bit of laymans' words here.
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
rcair1
Crew
Posts: 1109
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:01 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):
No. It means that he's a paid expert witness.

Yes - but he is also probably not unbiased. I've _been_ a paid expert witness, and I've hired them. While you cannot lie - you are certainly painting a picture...

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):
What, they didn't go out of business and are now making a profit? Horrors!

And the American Tax payers are out 10-12 Billion. Yes - GM buys back stock - at current market price which is far less than we bought it for.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 41):
And they are not all whores. Engineers, in particular, are always the guys I want to talk to first in a lawsuit, if they are available, because their instinct is to tell management to shove it

I hope I'm not a whore.... As I said, been there, done that (expert witness thing...)

[Edited 2013-02-06 13:48:12 by ManuCH]
rcair1
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5119
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:19 am

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 46):
As I said, been there, done that (expert witness thing...)

Me, too. It was a gas. But it was easy because I truly believed, and could defend, the opinion that I was expressing.
 
rcair1
Crew
Posts: 1109
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:39 am

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 47):
But it was easy because I truly believed, and could defend, the opinion that I was expressing.

That is good - I did get asked once for one that I did not think was correct- I declined... You really have to.
rcair1
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:10 am

Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
Skydrol
Posts: 1053
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 12:01 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:32 am

Quoting cornutt (Reply 32):
Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 5):JTSB has determined that the Li-ion battery that forced the ANA emergency landing went into thermal runaway -- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure.

Last I checked, the aircraft is intact, and everyone who was on board is still alive. So by definition, it was not a catastrophic event.

Even if nobody dies and a car is still structurally intact when an engine runs out of oil and seizes, it is still a 'catastrophic system failure'.

I don't see the same description being too far off relating to 787 battery self-destruction.




✈ LD4 ✈
∙ ---{--« ∙ ----{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ---{--« ∙ --{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ----{--« ∙
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 3358
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:35 am

The Seattle Times article is not good. If government agencies and the constructor start to push the blame around, it is usually a sign that they are facing a big and costly problem with no obvious easy solution around. Sometimes it is also a sign of failing trust between the involved parties. Which can be for various reasons, but is never a good sign for finding a commonly agreed solution to the technical problem.
 
PITingres
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:14 pm

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 50):
Even if nobody dies and a car is still structurally intact when an engine runs out of oil and seizes, it is still a 'catastrophic system failure'.

That is debatable, and in any case there isn't a good car analogy -- cars don't have multiply redundant systems. The item that failed was not critical to normal flight operations and the event was contained. There was no catastrophe here.

I see that after a few days of reasonably rational discussion, the sky is falling again.  
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
wilco737
Posts: 7279
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:21 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:17 pm

Quoting PITingres (Reply 53):
I see that after a few days of reasonably rational discussion, the sky is falling again.  

Yes, we see that as well.

We want to ask everybody to be polite and discuss in a civilized and respectful way. Do not start in name calling or any other disrespecting posts.

Thanks for your understanding.

wilco737
  
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11728
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:31 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 39):
You sticking to it? Or do you wanna push it higher?   

I think we're trending towards 3 to 5 months of grounding.   I really want to be proven pessimistic. Once the 787 was grounded, I did not see a quick fix. I'm seeing identifying the issue taking longer than plan. Once the solution is found, there will be a 'quick fix' implimented. But as you know that takes months to certify even for short replacement intervals. Boeing and the vendor will then take a year (or more) stretching out the replacement intervals by design changes and DTP testing.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 40):
What is the risk of etops being lowered on the 788 to down to 180? (unless it is already at 180, which means I just asked the stupidest question ever)

In my opinion the risk is high. That is about the level I see the plane being cleared for post-fix.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CrimsonNL, deltacto, flyingclrs727, iadbudd, intotheair, jumpjets, northwest_guy, oslmgm, pvjin, StTim, SXI899 and 213 guests