777ER
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 9855
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:44 am

Link to the previous thread can be found here FAA Grounds 787, Part 8 (by 777ER Feb 5 2013 in Civil Aviation)

WARNING: Due to the last thread 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.
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:32 am

Well here we go. Hope enough people had time to calm down so I can actually post news from Japan.

As we all know, a single cell on the JL flight caused the whole battery to go off. What Boeing, FAA, NTSB, and the other investigators need to do now is figure out why it was just that one cell.


Here's the latest from Japan:

Test flight made, with 13 pilots on board, to see if battery went haywire,
"Uneventful" test:
http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...test-flight-to-probe-battery-fires

Customers getting delay warnings from Boeing

(Note: the journalism in this article suggest Boeing wants this investigation to wrap up ASAP so they can start delivering)
http://www.japantoday.com/category/b...rns-that-787-deliveries-could-slip

Batteries were often switched before the recent issues were acknowledged, some electricity powerback issues were to blame:

Quote:
All 10 replacements occurred last year—two in May, four in October, two on one day in November and two in December—involving seven Dreamliners, she said. The airline operates 17 of the planes.

ANA had not reported the replacements to the Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) because “the 10 problems were found before flights so were considered not to affect safety”, Yamamoto said.

A JAL spokeswoman said the company had experienced “quite a few cases” where Boeing 787 batteries had to be replaced before the aircraft was grounded worldwide. She added that no further details were immediately available.
http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...switched-many-dreamliner-batteries

In regards to JL and NH's requests for compensation for the 787 delays, Boeing said they're going to wait until the grounding order is lifted to address this. AI also is considering seeking damages too.
http://www.japantoday.com/category/b...ation-after-dreamliner-back-in-air
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
speedbird128
Posts: 1562
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 2:30 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 8:07 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
Test flight made, with 13 pilots on board, to see if battery went haywire,
"Uneventful" test:

I trust that this single test flight is not going to be a basis for a thumbs up to lift the grounding....???

Surely theres more testing than just a single flight to prove it won't occur again?
A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 8:20 am

What if this comes down to bad batteries of later batches? Have they changed the chemistry since EIS? Shorts in the battery they say, does that not point to a manufactoring glitch? They will need to beef up the containment, is that a long certification?

The cells that shorted, they must be identfied for root cause and fixed at the factory?! But if they find the "smoking gun" what happens next?
 
BoeingVista
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 9:54 am

Quoting sweair (Reply 3):
What if this comes down to bad batteries of later batches? Have they changed the chemistry since EIS?

Seems so yes, added to which the NTSB has raised concerns about whether the original certification battery tests were representative.
BV
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:41 pm

Quoting sweair (Reply 3):
What if this comes down to bad batteries of later batches? Have they changed the chemistry since EIS? Shorts in the battery they say, does that not point to a manufactoring glitch?

Apparently a higher-than-normal proportion of batteries have required replacement since the 787 entered service - but none of the previous incidents have caused any danger. As far as a 'trend' can be established, the previous incidents have involved the batteries becoming fully discharged (mostly, apparently, due to incorrect disconnection/discharges while the aeroplanes were on the ground), at which point safety cut-offs operated and the batteries had to be exchanged.

So while Boeing will obviously have exhaustively to check the batteries themselves, it looks as if they will also have to check the rest of the aeroplane's power systems - especially the recharging processes.

For information, the batteries, as we know, are produced by GS Yuasa in Japan. The firm in general charge of the design of the 787's electrical systems is the French company, Thales. The recharging system was designed by a firm called Securaplane, based in Tucson, Arizona - they were a US firm when they joined the 787 programme, but they have since been taken over by a British company, Meggitt PLC.

So it looks as if a truly international effort will be needed to sort this business out.......  


Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 2):
I trust that this single test flight is not going to be a basis for a thumbs up to lift the grounding....???

No chance at all of that, Speedbird128. I imagine that test flights will continue nonstop for quite a while.

[Edited 2013-02-10 04:46:41]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
speedbird128
Posts: 1562
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 2:30 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:00 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
No chance at all of that, Speedbird128. I imagine that test flights will continue nonstop for quite a while.

I would also imagine so... it just sounded that 1 positive test flight and it was looking good. That in itself is great, but 99.9% of flights had no battery thermal runaways either... so it was just my inquisiviteness at the wording of the report.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
So it looks as if a truly international effort will be needed to sort this business out

Thats what the 787 is (and most major other engineering projects as well) - a major international effort.
A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7591
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:57 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
The firm in general charge of the design of the 787's electrical systems is the French company, Thales.

I don't think that's true. At least when we were talking about the ZA002 incident, it was Zodiac that was involved. Another French company.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:12 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 7):
I don't think that's true. At least when we were talking about the ZA002 incident, it was Zodiac that was involved. Another French company.

Looks like they're both involved, Aesma? I've no idea to what extent the situation affects each individual company:-

"Les malheurs du 787 pourraient avoir de sérieuses conséquences pour les équipementiers aéronautiques français. De tous les Boeing, cet avion est celui sur lequel la part d'équipements français est la plus importante, si l'on exclut les moteurs CFM du 737. Safran, Thales et Zodiac vendent chacun pour plusieurs millions de dollars d'équipements par appareil. Tout problème technique qui ralentirait le rythme de production et de livraison du « dreamliner » serait autant de chiffre d'affaires en moins pour eux."

http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-s...-la-production-ralentit-529236.php
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:14 pm

I think Hamilton Sundstrand has a big part of the electrical system.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:04 pm

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 2):
Surely theres more testing than just a single flight to prove it won't occur again?
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
No chance at all of that, Speedbird128. I imagine that test flights will continue nonstop for quite a while.

The article quotes a Boeing spokesperson as noting there will be multiple test flights the following week.

[Edited 2013-02-10 08:04:49]
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13828
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:41 pm

I agree with the thread starter, let's talk ideas/opinions/issues and leave any comments about fellow posters out of this.

What I was going to post to the other thread is that I agree that the 787 won't return to service till the root cause is found and eliminated. I think it's likely that the airlines themselves if not other international agencies would reject any workaround based scheme that doesn't conclusively eliminate the root cause. From what has been made public we know short circuits appear in individual cells of the Li-Ion battery but we we haven't been told the cause of the short circuit. It seem the test flights are geared towards determining if the cells flex during flight and cause the short circuit.

It's a real ugly situation for Boeing. Changing the battery technology then requires changes to the upstream charger and monitoring tech. Not changing the battery technology means they have the burden of proving the relatively new tech is safe after the highly public failures.

It seems this is one of those times that CEOs are supposed to be earning their ridiculously high salaries (something like 400 times the average worker's wage in the US). Time to see if McNearney et al can save the day!
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
2175301
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:08 pm

Hmmm.

I would disagree that the root cause has to be eliminated. It has to be understood; and contained from causing significant flight or safety issues.

It is also possible that they may never find a leading Root Cause. Sometimes all you do in these investigations is identify things that need improvement; even if you cannot conclude that one (or two) of them are the Root Cause.


I would also agree that the batteries on the test flights are heavily instrumented with all kinds of extra sensors. For example mounting stress/strain gauges on the connecting bus bars and individual terminal posts seems rather obvious. I do believe that it is likely that the flexibility of the cells and the rigidity of the connecting bus bars are causing unanticipated flexing in the cells near the terminal post. That kind of problem occurs in all kinds of industries. Usually the answer is to provide more flexibility as you can rarely make the rest of the system ridged enough.

My personal guess at the solution for these batteries is:
1) The basic cell is reused as is.
2) Ridged connecting bars between the cells are replaced by flexible cables
3) To prevent a run-away cell from overheating the next cell about a 1/16" - 1/8" layer of insulating ceramic (likely the same material as the Space Shuttle Tiles as it is readily available) will be placed between the cells.
4) The containment box will become more robust.
5) They may include better temperature monitoring of the individual cells; which will require software changes in at least the monitoring and data storage software (I doubt this warrants any changes to information presented to the flight deck).

Have a great day,
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 2980
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 8:45 pm

Would large number of smaller cells helped with thermal runaway issue. I was reading Telsa Roadster's battery system paper. It has 6800 small cells vs 8 large cells on B787. Likelyhood of a car battery pack getting damaged is very high, but not many lives at risk. Tesla's theorey is 6800 x approx AA size batteries create large surface area to dissipate heat optimally.
 
jetblueguy22
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 8:53 pm

Quoting sweair (Reply 9):

I know someone who is high level in UTC Aerospace Systems (the company Goodrich is now a part of) and he has said they did tests on the electrical system they provided and found it has nothing to do with the issues. It all leads back to the battery. Obviously I can't reveal who it is so people may not believe me but I put a lot of faith in this guy.
Pat
Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 9:00 pm

Quoting RNAVFL350 (Reply 13):
I am completely confused by this response to PHX787's post. Care to explain what exactly was absurd about his post (reply 13)

He insinuated that Boeing would be happy to do a test flight and declare the plane safe. If they have learned something it is how fast the media spreads negativity and if they would even think acting that way..well it is absurd!

Not even the most greedy bean counter would think of that being a good idea right now, look we took a test flight and now back to business..
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:26 pm

Quoting sweair (Reply 16):
He insinuated that Boeing would be happy to do a test flight and declare the plane safe. If they have learned something it is how fast the media spreads negativity and if they would even think acting that way..well it is absurd!

That wasn't what I was insinuating. I am suggesting that B make these test flights, see the input and output with the battery, possibly show that it was a Yuasa thing, and bada-boom bada-bing paperwork tests etc FAA lifts ED and we're all happy again. If the tests show irregularities with the batteries' performance and/or safety hazards, then appropriate action will be taken, will it not?


And a side note sir- your comment is exactly why 777ER issued a temporary ban on discussion about the battery problems. No need to get all attacky on me.

Back on topic:

I don't know if anyone seen this yet from NH's page, but it says that they're not going to fly the 787 again until at least the 30th of March.

Quote:
ANA has revised all flight schedules on the assumption that operations of the Boeing 787 will not recommence before March 30th. Nonetheless, we will continue to cooperate with all parties to ensure and confirm the safety of this aircraft, so that 787 flights may recommence as soon as possible.

Due to the above situation, cancellations and schedule changes have been implemented on certain routes. Also, other routes will be subject to aircraft type changes, including some routes other than those originally scheduled for Boeing 787 operation. Operational information is available from the links below.

An update for operations commencing on March 31st will be provided in this space, as soon as further details are determined.



Includes a schedule:
https://www.ana.co.jp/topics/notice130116/index_list_e.html

[Edited 2013-02-10 14:40:50]
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
BEG2IAH
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:42 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:43 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 17):
FAA lifts ED

You probably meant "AD". This made me laugh as it's related to a certain dysfunction and when combined with the verb "lift"...  

Cheers

[Edited 2013-02-10 14:44:30]
 
ComeAndGo
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:44 pm

They're doing the test flights to pinpoint the problem. Is it vibrations affecting the batteries, is it humidity affecting the batteries or are the cells too large and creating temperature variations within the cells like some have claimed.

The roadway back to flight is a temporary fix with more spacing between individual cells and a more robust battery case.

The permanent fix is a new battery design that avoids any kind of thermal runaway.

Without knowing the root cause there's no solution.
 
zkeye
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:05 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:04 pm

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 18):
This made me laugh as it's related to a certain dysfunction and when combined with the verb "lift"..

Well Boeing are having a problem getting it up aren't they?
Bring out the gimp
 
BEG2IAH
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:42 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:40 pm

Quoting ZKEYE (Reply 20):
Well Boeing are having a problem getting it up aren't they?

I would allow other interested parties to check that.
 
cornutt
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:57 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:11 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 17):
That wasn't what I was insinuating. I am suggesting that B make these test flights, see the input and output with the battery, possibly show that it was a Yuasa thing, and bada-boom bada-bing paperwork tests etc FAA lifts ED and we're all happy again.

I don't think that's what anyone really wants to see accomplished with the test flights, though. If it were me, I'd want the test flight to show that the failure, or at least the type of plate damage seen in the CAT scans of the JAL battery, can be re-created under specific conditions. Once that's done, we have a defined chain of events for how the failure occurs, and from there, we can figure out what to do about it. Presumably there would then be design mods, and an additional test flight to verify the modified battery.

The FAA doesn't care whose "thing" it is. They only care about what the problem is and how is it going to be fixed. Even if it were shown to be a manufacturing problem confined to one batch of batteries (which I doubt at this point), the FAA would want to know what is being done to prevent it from happening again.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1211
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:27 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 17):
That wasn't what I was insinuating. I am suggesting that B make these test flights, see the input and output with the battery, possibly show that it was a Yuasa thing, and bada-boom bada-bing paperwork tests etc FAA lifts ED and we're all happy again. If the tests show irregularities with the batteries' performance and/or safety hazards, then appropriate action will be taken, will it not?

Not quite. Even if the batteries never fail again, the containment system has to be fixed as well.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 2980
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:59 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 17):
I am suggesting that B make these test flights, see the input and output with the battery, possibly show that it was a Yuasa thing, and bada-boom bada-bing paperwork tests etc FAA lifts ED and we're all happy again. If the tests show irregularities with the batteries' performance and/or safety hazards, then appropriate action will be taken, will it not?

I see few issues, No one is going to trust Boeing/FAA paper tests, not NTSB, not customers, not media, not public. NTSB already warned FAA about single cell testing assumption.

Second if Boeing design assumptions and written specs to Thales/Yuasa were wrong, it is difficult to pin on Yuasa. In a outsourced model Yuasa's responsibility is to live up to the written specs, not what Boeing thinks what a battery system should do. Obviously vendors/sub-vendors will do everything to address the issue, for PR reasons, not legal reasons.
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:05 am

So the NTSB/FAA aren't on board these flights? Hmm I do see some conflicts then.
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:19 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 25):

So the NTSB/FAA aren't on board these flights? Hmm I do see some conflicts then.

If you read the link you posted upthread (which is repeated by other news outlets), it says the test flight carried "a crew of 13 pilots and testing personnel", without identifying which parties they represented.

The article also reminds us that since the flight was part of the ongoing investigations of the 787 battery events, Boeing could not release any further details.
International Homo of Mystery
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:27 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 25):
So the NTSB/FAA aren't on board these flights? Hmm I do see some conflicts then.

Let's not find problems and let them test. That comment is the type that starts the trolls.

Consider that Boeing, the FAA, and NSTB spend days/weeks designing a test series and instrumenting the plane, when everyone agrees, they run the test. It takes another week to review all the data. Once reviewed, they develop the second series and the cycle goes on. The thing is not all agencies need to be on the plane if they've agreed to the test protocols.
There probably is a Designated Representative (DR) on board, and from personal experience they are tougher than the agency they represent.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2357
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:41 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 25):
So the NTSB/FAA aren't on board these flights? Hmm I do see some conflicts then.

I'm guessing whatever Boeing is doing now is just "data collection". If and when there is a certification flight the FAA will more than likely be onboard. If the NTSB were to fly, which I doubt, it would be political.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1211
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:42 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 25):
So the NTSB/FAA aren't on board these flights? Hmm I do see some conflicts then.

It would depend what stage Beoing is at. If they are saying "See it works", then I would expect FAA on board, if they doing a "We wonder if this works", then no need for FAA.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1249
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:54 am

Quoting sweair (Reply 3):
Shorts in the battery they say, does that not point to a manufactoring glitch?

No, not only, sadly, it could also have been charged too much, discharged too much or discharged with too much current to have a short. Or there was a small problem, that would be easily switched off normally, raised to a big problem, because it went undetected too long because of the large format cells. You see the problem is not one-dimensional.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:01 am

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 12):
3) To prevent a run-away cell from overheating the next cell about a 1/16" - 1/8" layer of insulating ceramic (likely the same material as the Space Shuttle Tiles as it is readily available) will be placed between the cells.
4) The containment box will become more robust.

This press story appears very much to confirm your 'diagnosis,' 2175301:-

"The Boeing 787 Dreamliner might get some design changes especially to its infamous batteries to keep fire risk at a minimum. This is temporary solution to keep the plane flying while a permanent solution to the technical problems is in the works.

"The lithium ion batteries that seem to be the cause of the Dreamliner’s problems might be modified with separation between the batteries cells increased."

---------------------

"Boeing hopes to solve the matter as soon as possible, and have the new batteries ready to be shipped out by the end of February. If they manage this the most optimistic scenario should mean that all passenger flights should be opened sometime in March."


http://empowerednews.net/boeing-787-...to-stop-technical-trouble/1834485/

[Edited 2013-02-10 22:13:08]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 3702
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:22 am

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 12):
3) To prevent a run-away cell from overheating the next cell about a 1/16" - 1/8" layer of insulating ceramic (likely the same material as the Space Shuttle Tiles as it is readily available) will be placed between the cells.

I think that would worsen the case...
If a cell overheats, then this shield would prevent the excess temperature to be spread out to the rest of the battery and would accelerate the thermal runaway for that cell. The result would be almost as catastrophic as before for the battery.

The solution would probably be to space them more to help air circulation around them to help them keep cool. air would also act as thermal insulation between cells.

Or maybe wrap each individual cell in a thermally conducting material and connect them to a heatsink. Maybe put a fan in there somewhere.

I think this is, in essence what one of these professors was advocating, wasn't it?
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13828
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:06 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 30):
"The Boeing 787 Dreamliner might get some design changes especially to its infamous batteries to keep fire risk at a minimum. This is temporary solution to keep the plane flying while a permanent solution to the technical problems is in the works.

"The lithium ion batteries that seem to be the cause of the Dreamliner’s problems might be modified with separation between the batteries cells increased."

Personally, I feel that while Boeing will want to use a temporary solution to get the planes flying as soon as possible, that won't be acceptable to the US and Japanese regulators nor the airlines. Yes, I know that temporary solutions have been used in the past, but I think the amount of risk and the amount of publicity this specific problem has created will make a temporary solution unacceptable.

AvWeek speaks to the difficulties to be faced even when an acceptable solution is found:

Quote:

Among the 50 grounded aircraft belonging to eight operators which, for example, will be modified first? Likewise, how will modifications be implemented on the growing fleet of undelivered 787s that continue to stack up at Everett, Wash., where new 787s are rolling off the line at the rate of five per month?

Questions also remain over which of these takes priority and what follow-on disruption the modification program may cause to the already slowing process of change incorporation at the Everett Modification Center (EMC). The 100th 787 is on the assembly line, 50 have been delivered and the balance is made up of the original six development aircraft, 25 earlier production aircraft undergoing or awaiting modification in the EMC and more recently built aircraft awaiting delivery.

Even the basic suggestion of strengthening the cell walls and improving the containment will require two sets of such improved batteries and containment structures for each of the 50 grounded aircraft plus those already awaiting delivery due to the grounding. One clearly can't snap ones fingers and have 100+ sets manufactured overnight so even a temporary solution will be a challenge.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
alfablue
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:16 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:46 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 30):
"Boeing hopes to solve the matter as soon as possible, and have the new batteries ready to be shipped out by the end of February. If they manage this the most optimistic scenario should mean that all passenger flights should be opened sometime in March."

7 times official delayed and grounded by the authorities does not give me confidence in Boeings hopes - it looks (to me) that the press statements are ouf of touch with engineering.


Coming back to the 787 problems. It looks that the authorities (and more or equally important) the insurance companies getting cold feet with that new battery technology. How can Boeing or the FAA justify maintaining those special conditions and lets remember other manufacturers pulled them out of their designs (Cessna and Gulfstream). The insurers will ask for a premium based on recent events compared to existing technology (especially after other abandoned that technology due to safety concerns).

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/AW_02_04_2013_p23-543271.xml

Quote from the article:

Gulfstream decided to switch battery types barely a year before the G650's final FAA certification in September 2012, and Cessna abandoned the lithium-ion batteries on the nascent CJ4 fleet less than two years after first delivery.

alfaBlue
 
humanitarian
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:00 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:18 pm

From what I am reading here and elsewhere is that any modifications may be done within the exisiting footprint of the battery boxes. The only change would be in exchanging the unmodified batteries with newly modified ones. I suspect any other 'possible' airframe modifications would be minor and done fairly quickly if even needed.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:52 pm

Polish Radio reports that LOT is extending 767 leases for an additional six months under an ominously worded headline:

Dreamliner fleet grounded until summer
International Homo of Mystery
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 867
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:47 pm

Maybe just separating the 8 cells far enough apart in an upgraded box that contains splashing electrolyte is enough. Essentially 8 parallel, individually housed packs = each pack = one cell. Even 2 independent thermal runaways on the pack of 8 would perhaps be tolerable in terms of current and voltage available to start the APU? Would need low resistance connections to the bus, but otherwise, don't think the certification would be that great for this. This has probably been discussed already, but maybe worth repeating.
 
servantleader
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:17 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:07 pm

Quoting alfablue (Reply 33):
Coming back to the 787 problems. It looks that the authorities (and more or equally important) the insurance companies getting cold feet with that new battery technology

Right, it is cascading intangibles like this that will make it difficult for this to be resolved quickly and cleanly. The engineering work that should have been done prior to certification will get done over the next weeks / months, but due to the inherent unkowns of Li-ion batteries as being utilized on the 787, engineering "fixes" may not be enough to statisfy certain key stakeholders.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13828
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:34 pm

Quoting Humanitarian (Reply 34):
From what I am reading here and elsewhere is that any modifications may be done within the exisiting footprint of the battery boxes.

I'm sure that's the hope, but I don't see a lot of excess room:

Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:36 pm

For those interested, there was another test flight this morning:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/B...5/history/20130211/1815Z/KBFI/KBFI
International Homo of Mystery
 
brilondon
Posts: 3018
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:48 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 7):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
The firm in general charge of the design of the 787's electrical systems is the French company, Thales.

I don't think that's true. At least when we were talking about the ZA002 incident, it was Zodiac that was involved. Another French company.

A conspiracy is a foot I believe.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:36 pm

Quoting brilondon (Reply 40):
A conspiracy is a foot I believe.

and to pursue that angle will get the thread shut down.. even in jest...

Thales designed the battery system, Zodiac the distribution system.. and there are others designing other parts of the electrical systems.. This isn't a plane where all similar components come from just one supplier.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:47 pm

Quoting brilondon (Reply 40):
A conspiracy is a foot I believe.


A 'worldwide conspiracy' by the look of it.........

"Even the first couple of tiers of the supply chain for these electrical systems are intricate.

"Thales of France supplies the 787 power conversion system, with subcontracts to GS Yuasa of Japan for the main batteries; Securaplane Technologies of Tucson, Ariz., for the battery charger system; and Kanto Aircraft Instrument of Japan for the charge monitoring system.

"Thales said all its systems have been certified by “very robust” processes.

“Thales is working very closely with Boeing in coordination with the investigative and regulatory authorities to understand the events and resolve the (battery) issue,” it said in a statement.

"The aerospace systems unit of United Technologies supplies many of the rest of the 787 electrical systems, but it also subcontracts with multiple companies.

"Nabtesco of Japan supplies the high-voltage power distributor. ECE Zodiac of France makes the power distribution panels.

"United Technologies supplies two power control modules that plug into the ECE power panel motherboard."


http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...5633_boeingoutsourcingsidexml.html
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
airplanecrazy
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 8:09 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:53 pm

I heard on CBS news that "the damage to the Japan Airlines 787 was so severe the tail could have fallen off had the fire occured in flight." I found this related article:

http://mynorthwest.com/11/2199786/Re...nt-structural-damage-to-Boeing-787
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:06 am

Looks like Boeing aren't planning any more test flights for now:-

"Boeing said Monday's flight included two pilots and 11 flight test personnel. The test plane includes special equipment that lets it track the conditions of its two big lithium-ion batteries during the flight. It's one of Boeing's fleet of six 787 test planes that were used for flight testing before the plane went into full production.

------------------------

"Boeing said it will be analyzing data from the flight in the days ahead. It said the data is part of the investigations into the battery incidents, so it wouldn't release any details about what it found either on Monday's flight or on the earlier one conducted Saturday."


http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-...1/boeing-doing-2nd-787-flight-test

My guess is that the next step is to install and test modified batteries?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
14ccKemiskt
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:46 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:18 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 32):
Personally, I feel that while Boeing will want to use a temporary solution to get the planes flying as soon as possible, that won't be acceptable to the US and Japanese regulators nor the airlines. Yes, I know that temporary solutions have been used in the past, but I think the amount of risk and the amount of publicity this specific problem has created will make a temporary solution unacceptable.

Agreed!

My analysis of the events that lead to the current situation is as follows:

• Boeing wants to put in all new technology advances there is at the same time into the same all new design.
• As all the new techs are put together in a plane, more and more issues arise which makes the project more and more late, more embarrassing and increasingly complex to manage.
• Management becomes highly stressed and presses the technicians that along with the FAA keeps most of their focus on what's not working at all. In the hurry and under that pressure they fail to think about the other parts of the design that is not malfunctioning at the moment but which would normally attain extra focus.
• The project barely manages to keep its head above water to get certified, but with an abnormal amount of exceptions having to be made. Since the battery design issue went past undetected, chances are higher than normal that there are more problems of the same dignity luring under the surface.

To me it is rather obvious that the both the design and the certification processes were flawed. If Boeing and the FAA don't go through both of them (and not only the battery issues) now during this grounding period, chances are in my opinion high that new serious problems arises. Getting the planes back in the air a.s.a.p. must never be top priority here. Another grounding of the 787 might be unbearable.
 
ual747-600
Posts: 591
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 1999 12:57 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:22 am

Quoting airplanecrazy (Reply 43):
I heard on CBS news that "the damage to the Japan Airlines 787 was so severe the tail could have fallen off had the fire occured in flight." I found this related article:

http://mynorthwest.com/11/2199786/Re...g-787

I was just wondering if this news story had been verified. Was the JAL 787 that had the fire on board flown back to Japan or is it still in Boston?

Thanks in advance.

UAL747-600
 
airplanecrazy
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 8:09 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:32 am

Quoting ual747-600 (Reply 46):
I was just wondering if this news story had been verified. Was the JAL 787 that had the fire on board flown back to Japan or is it still in Boston?

I first heard the story on the CBS Radio News World News Roundup on my drive home tonight, so I thought it came from a credible source. I am having trouble finding any good substantiation of the claim, however, on any other reputable web site. In fact, it is not even showing up as a story on cbs.com. Furthermore, Sharyl Attkisson (supposedly the original reporter of this information) isn't mentioning it on her twitter site.

http://twitter.com/SharylAttkisson

I do not know the current location of the JAL 787 in question.
 
PITingres
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:50 am

https://twitter.com/NTSB/status/301123347016720385

"NTSB investigators found only minor damage to electronics bay on JAL Boeing 787, following Jan 7 battery fire."

Since I don't imagine that it's possible to have minor damage to the EE bay, which is where the battery lives, but yet have "significant" structural damage elsewhere, I'm going to say that the CBS news report is simply incorrect.

[Edited 2013-02-11 16:54:26]
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1211
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9

Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:53 am

Quoting airplanecrazy (Reply 43):
I heard on CBS news that "the damage to the Japan Airlines 787 was so severe the tail could have fallen off had the fire occured in flight." I found this related article:

Is this true? News reports from sources have been known to be wrong before, especially when a claim this dramatic is made.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 321neo, Blankbarcode, codc10, cs03, CXH, dmdietz, dmt52, Dutchy, EastCoastWing, FAST Enterprise [Crawler], Google [Bot], gregn21, JimJiang, jonnywishbone, JU068, proudavgeek, rta, Steelhead, tb727, thomasphoto60, travatl, ual777, vhtje and 389 guests