holzmann
Topic Author
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:43 pm

If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 4:01 pm

Say Boeing gets all 787s fixed and service resumes for both current and pending customers BUT battery issues and fires resurface within the next six months: how bad would this scenario be for the 787 and Boeing?

Discuss the scenarios and implications.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23711
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 4:09 pm

I expect fires are unlikely since Boeing improved the plastics (which is what burned on JL8 - not the battery cells or the electrolyte in them) to withstand significantly higher temperatures. And even if the new plastics do catch fire, they cannot burn long enough nor hot enough to breach the containment box, so they're not a concern from a regulatory and flight-safety aspect (though they would be a PR concern, of course).

Battery reliability will be the main concern. The 787 needs the APU battery to keep the APU going and you need the APU to be available to fly farther than 180 minutes from a diversion point. So if the in-flight failure rate is too high, that's going to prevent ETOPS-240 and ETOPS-330. The Ship's Battery isn't needed from an ETOPS standpoint, but a too-high in-flight failure rate might push for additional power supply redundancies for the braking system.

[Edited 2013-04-27 09:10:54]
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 4:18 pm

Quoting holzmann (Thread starter):

Say Boeing gets all 787s fixed and service resumes for both current and pending customers BUT battery issues and fires resurface within the next six months: how bad would this scenario be for the 787 and Boeing?

Not an problem. Solution WAY overdesigned for thermal or incendiary containment. As Stitch says, only issue left is reliability related. Reliability wasn't an issue before and so doubt it will be now.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3028
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 4:25 pm

I suppose this could go for any problem that any aircraft has. The DC-10 was grounded for a short time after the AA crash at ORD, what if...That is the same thing. There are examples of electrical motors having problems, there are problems with cars that could cause death and have to have a fix applied to them. This is no different except that it affects a very public piece of machinery that has a lot of press.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
spacecadet
Posts: 2866
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 4:27 pm

Short answer: very bad, but also very unlikely.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
bellancacf
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:51 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 4:28 pm

Well, there's always Elon Musk. It would make one wonder whether the current style battery could ever be made workable, because it seems that Boeing -- and the various suppliers -- have done about all that can be done with this chemistry and geometry and usage protocol. Think pleasant thoughts, folks.
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 1764
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 5:04 pm

Wrong question, question is if another issue leads to the FAA grounding the 787 within say a year, what then for the 787 and Boeing?
BV
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3208
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 5:19 pm

As private Fraser continually said in Dad's Army "we're all doomed"      

Seriously Boeing have just worked their socks off to find, test and fit a solution to the battery fire problem, and along comes a Jonah wondering what the effect of another grounding would be. This is a time for the aviation industry to look to the future. The glass is half full and filling, not half empty and draining.
 
twiga
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:24 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 5:33 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
The Ship's Battery isn't needed from an ETOPS standpoint, but a too-high in-flight failure rate might push for additional power supply redundancies for the braking system.

Stitch - not quite sure if that's correct. From Boeing's web page the ships main battery is used for braking when "towing", unless there is another use they didn't spell out, so it would have little to do with redundacies. Are we on the same page or are you thinking of something else, or redundancies when towing.
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 5:40 pm

Hopefully this will be this will be that last of the 787 battery issues. Just to note it will be at least another month before UA and NH 787s are back in operation.

I imagine all 787 carriers will want to inspect the batteries for themselves be giving the grreen light.
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23711
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 5:58 pm

Quoting twiga (Reply 8):
Stitch - not quite sure if that's correct. From Boeing's web page the ships main battery is used for braking when "towing", unless there is another use they didn't spell out, so it would have little to do with redundacies. Are we on the same page or are you thinking of something else, or redundancies when towing.

I (and many others) have been operating under the assumption the Ship's Battery would provide power to the braking system on landing in the unlikely event that a 787 lost all four engine generators and both APU generators and was still able to successfully land at an airport.

However, we may all be incorrect in that assumption depending on how much power the system draws to perform an emergency braking on landing.
 
N62NA
Posts: 4069
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:03 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 6):
Wrong question, question is if another issue leads to the FAA grounding the 787 within say a year, what then for the 787 and Boeing?

Actually I think it's the "right" question. You bring up "another" question.

Now, to the question asked by the OP: If there's a problem with the "fix" on the battery, and the FAA has approved the "fix" - then I would fault the FAA 100%.
How come I can't upload an avatar photo to my profile?
 
EricR
Posts: 1223
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:15 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:38 pm

The entire A380 fleet was grounded for a long period as well due to cracks in the wings, yet this did not have any long term impact on Airbus sales.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23711
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 7:24 pm

Quoting EricR (Reply 12):
The entire A380 fleet was grounded for a long period as well due to cracks in the wings, yet this did not have any long term impact on Airbus sales.

  

Individual frames were taken out of service to perform the fix, but the fleet as a whole was never grounded.

The closest we have come to a "grounding" with the A380 is when QF voluntarily stopped flying them for a period after QF31's engine failure.
 
EricR
Posts: 1223
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:15 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:24 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):

Quoting EricR (Reply 12):
The entire A380 fleet was grounded for a long period as well due to cracks in the wings, yet this did not have any long term impact on Airbus sales.

  

Individual frames were taken out of service to perform the fix, but the fleet as a whole was never grounded.

The closest we have come to a "grounding" with the A380 is when QF voluntarily stopped flying them for a period after QF31's engine failure.

You sir are correct. But the more important point is that Airbus overcame a significant issue with limited long term impacts. People have short memories. As long as no other major issues arise and the 787 lives up or exceeds expectations, then this news will be a distant memory in the near future.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3028
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:31 pm

Quoting EricR (Reply 12):

The entire A380 fleet was grounded for a long period as well due to cracks in the wings, yet this did not have any long term impact on Airbus sales.

That is not right, but also we have not seen a huge influx of orders for the A380 of late but that is due more to the fact that aircraft is a bit too big hence the success of both the B787 and the A350. Also the economy is crap in both North America and in Europe which would maybe produce more orders.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:38 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
I (and many others) have been operating under the assumption the Ship's Battery would provide power to the braking system on landing in the unlikely event that a 787 lost all four engine generators and both APU generators and was still able to successfully land at an airport.

However, we may all be incorrect in that assumption depending on how much power the system draws to perform an emergency braking on landing.

Yes, if you're down to the RAT only, the Main battery supplies power for the electric brakes on rollout because the RAT can't provide power as the airplane slows below about 60 knots (?). If the Main battery were to be inop you would still have the reversers which are very effective to slow the airplane. Depending on conditions (landing speed, weather, etc) with at least 10,000ft of runway you could probably stop before the end. With less you might do a little damage but nothing catastrophic unless it's really not your day (and there's a cliff at the end).
 
FlyBTV
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:01 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:01 pm

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 16):
If the Main battery were to be inop you would still have the reversers which are very effective to slow the airplane.

But what about in a fuel exhaustion scenario? That's one of the main situations where I can see all engine and APU generators being inop. Though I suppose a main battery failure concurrently with a fuel exhaustion incident would be pretty unlikely.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 3411
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:07 pm

Even with Elon Musk's theory ie., an underlying design issue of large cells, Boeing can always avoid fire with the help of sensors and software. If you see beyond "The Final Fix" cover story, a 787 will have more than one battery in its lifetime and Boeing will continuously improve the design and replace thru routine maintenance. No one will notice. If the large cell design is wrong Boeing may pay licensing fee to Mr. Musk and implement a new design.

We don't know how many bad batteries ANA and JAL replaced before they came out with the problem.

Change is difficult and every one wants to have NiCd, but we have to appreciate Boeing's efforts. 5-10 years from now every aircraft manufacturers will be using LiOn.
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 2569
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:17 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 6):
question is if another issue leads to the FAA grounding the 787 within say a year, what then for the 787 and Boeing?

That is what my concern would be. I think the battery issue won't re-surface, but wondering if some other problem may surface which is more serious than routine "teething issues." I sure hope not, I am a huge fan of the 787 and wish it much success - but another serious problem arising would be a hard blow to recover from.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 3):
The DC-10 was grounded for a short time after the AA crash at ORD

I think it was after UA 232, not AA 191 that the DC-10's were grounded. Was a long time ago, so you may be right after all.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:32 pm

Quoting flyBTV (Reply 17):
But what about in a fuel exhaustion scenario? That's one of the main situations where I can see all engine and APU generators being inop. Though I suppose a main battery failure concurrently with a fuel exhaustion incident would be pretty unlikely.

The "fuel exhaustion" scenario is a just like the total hydraulic failure (big airplane) and the dual engine (I can't get them restarted) failure senarios, you just hope it's your lucky day and there's even a runway in sight or a nice flat piece of ground/water. You're on your own you, hope there's a runway at the end of your descent. The airplane is engineered to prevent you from getting into any of these senarios but "stuff" happens -- if I make it to a runway with a cliff at the end and don't have any brakes, I'll use the engines for landing gear -- no fuel no fire.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6764
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:57 pm

I would wonder if they are looking at a new battery design, as in why is the battery necessary to operate the APU and vice versa. To most of us a battery can be used to start something, and once started is no longer used, except based on what we have learned in these threads is not the case with the 787, would love to know why such a design was implemented, even if the 787 was not the first. How much charging must a battery get during a six hour flight?

The current issue is that the a/c was grounded due to the battery, so every diversion or despatch failure will be investigated by the general public to see if the battery was involved, and if so, more and more pax will get into the business of trying to identify what type a/c they are flying on when they book or arrive at the airport.

The fixes put in place get the a/c back in service, I would like to believe that Boeing and its subcontractors are looking at designining a new battery and or chemistry ASAP and retrofitting them as soon as possible even if new certification is required, I think this current battery should go the way of the Dodo sooner rather than later.
 
twiga
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:24 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:20 am

Quoting flyBTV (Reply 17):
But what about in a fuel exhaustion scenario? That's one of the main situations where I can see all engine and APU generators being inop. Though I suppose a main battery failure concurrently with a fuel exhaustion incident would be pretty unlikely.

When you are down to the RAT with two engines out (for whatever reason) you are in that 1: 10 million hr event (catostrophic) try multiplying by 50,000 assuming they didn't improve the battery, and your "pretty unlikely" is now qualified.   
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1989
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:23 am

Quoting ER757 (Reply 19):
I think it was after UA 232, not AA 191 that the DC-10's were grounded. Was a long time ago, so you may be right after all.

IIRC, the grounding was after AA191. Precautionary measures were obviously taken after UA 232, but I don't think there were any "groundings".
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1185
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sun Apr 28, 2013 2:22 am

Battery technology is rapidly improving. It is highly likely that Boeing will redo this battery sometime in the next several years. Better, more rugged, more power, lighter, less subject to failure.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Gasman
Posts: 1485
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:55 am

Quoting holzmann (Thread starter):
Say Boeing gets all 787s fixed and service resumes for both current and pending customers BUT battery issues and fires resurface within the next six months: how bad would this scenario be for the 787 and Boeing?

Not a problem. Boeing will simply build yet another box in which to place the current fireproof box which houses the lithium battery that cannot catch fire. 
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 3411
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:05 pm

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 16):
Yes, if you're down to the RAT only, the Main battery supplies power for the electric brakes on rollout because the RAT can't provide power as the airplane slows below about 60 knots (?). If the Main battery were to be inop you would still have the reversers which are very effective to slow the airplane. Depending on conditions (landing speed, weather, etc) with at least 10,000ft of runway you could probably stop before the end. With less you might do a little damage but nothing catastrophic unless it's really not your day (and there's a cliff at the end).

In future they may have to put generators in wheels to pickup from where RAT left off. Similar to regenerative braking in hybrid vehicles.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13876
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sun Apr 28, 2013 2:18 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 25):

Correction: "which is not allowed to catch fire." Boeing never claimed it couldn't. FAA was okay with that. Then during grounding FAA made the assinine assertion that no fires were ever allowed on certified aircraft. Why all aircraft in the world weren't immediately grounded after that claim only the FAA knows for sure... And it's why this fix doesn't matter. If any fire of any kind happens on the 787, no matter how mundane, all hell will break loose.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
goosebayguy
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:12 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:28 pm

If any batteries fail and fumes etc emerge then the press are going to be all over this issue. If passenger perception is that the 787 is unsafe they will avoid at all costs. Personally I think Airbus have made the right decision but Boeing have made a very risky choice.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23711
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:33 pm

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 28):
Personally I think Airbus have made the right decision but Boeing have made a very risky choice.


We should not forget that if not for being late, the A350XWB would have been about ready to enter revenue service now and would have had four lithium-ion batteries, so that would be twice the risk in the view of the press and public.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3707
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:51 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 21):

I would wonder if they are looking at a new battery design, as in why is the battery necessary to operate the APU and vice versa.

I have a suspicion that the APU controller can be operated from a power source other than the APU battery, The only evidence is the ANA wing tip lights flashing when the main battery was off line. Plus Boeing likes redundancy in critical systems.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 27):
Correction: "which is not allowed to catch fire."

I think the original release was similar to this.... due to the confined sealed space and limited oxygen available, a sustaining fire was improbable. This does not preclude heat damage to a cell, however the new insulation severely limits adjacent cell damage.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 4126
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:58 pm

It is unlikely that we will ever see a similar thermal event. The new containment box is solid and reminds me of other containment designs used for storage of flammable liquids used in industrial production or storage applications.

As the FAA already pointed out, the ETOPS certification could be influenced by battery reliability. And I guess they will look at normal failures and not just thermal events. How this will word out is everyone's guess.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:11 pm

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 26):
In future they may have to put generators in wheels to pickup from where RAT left off. Similar to regenerative braking in hybrid vehicles.

A perpetual motion machine--you use the brakes to power the brakes. Seriously, when the RAT stops spinning fast enough to provide electrical power during roll out all that happens is the essential flight instruments lose power and the cockpit goes dark -- no big deal, you're safely on the ground after one of the most harrowing experiences of your life.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3707
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:39 pm

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 32):
Seriously, when the RAT stops spinning fast enough to provide electrical power during roll out all that happens is the essential flight instruments lose power and the cockpit goes dark -- no big deal, you're safely on the ground after one of the most harrowing experiences of your life.

Since the 787 began after I retired, there is a question about the thrust reversers, are the electrically operated? if so if the RAT as your only power source goes can you still activate and deactivate them.. or are the TR's hydraulic?
 
F9Animal
Posts: 3712
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:01 am

I think the question by the poster is a great question. If the 787 develops another serious problem, I dont see it fairing well for Boeing. Lets face it, I am sure a few customers have had a conversation regarding what if. As bad as this program has been, another big problem might be what it takes to snap the camels back. I would also expect to see major cancellations from key customers.
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
hivue
Posts: 1639
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:59 am

Quoting holzmann (Thread starter):
BUT battery issues and fires resurface within the next six months: how bad would this scenario be for the 787 and Boeing?

So if, say, two more batteries incinerate in the next 50K hours of operation but the containment system works perfectly has the fix been a failure or success?

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 28):
Personally I think Airbus have made the right decision but Boeing have made a very risky choice.

I think the case has pretty well been made in all these 787 battery threads that Boeing didn't have a choice.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
cornutt
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:57 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:15 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 33):
Since the 787 began after I retired, there is a question about the thrust reversers, are the electrically operated? if so if the RAT as your only power source goes can you still activate and deactivate them..

Forgive me if I'm overlooking something, but if the RAT is your only power source, the thurst reversers don't matter much, do they?....
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23711
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:18 am

Quoting hivue (Reply 35):
So if, say, two more batteries incinerate in the next 50K hours of operation but the containment system works perfectly has the fix been a failure or success?


I'd say it's a mixed result since the fix is more than just the containment box. Boeing has made modifications to the battery system itself with the idea this would prevent future thermal runaway events.



Quoting cornutt (Reply 36):
Forgive me if I'm overlooking something, but if the RAT is your only power source, the thurst reversers don't matter much, do they?....

We're assuming the airframe was able to perform a safe landing with the RAT as the only power source (admittedly, an event with such a low probability that it's effectively a thought exercise).
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:58 am

Quoting cornutt (Reply 36):
Quoting cornutt (Reply 36):Forgive me if I'm overlooking something, but if the RAT is your only power source, the thurst reversers don't matter much, do they?....
We're assuming the airframe was able to perform a safe landing with the RAT as the only power source (admittedly, an event with such a low probability that it's effectively a thought exercise).

Actually the only scenario worth discussing that is even close to being realistic is dispatch with an inop APU and loss of all the engine generators--the engines are running and the RAT is supplying electrical power to the essential flight instruments so you can fly the airplane and make a landing. If the MAIN battery dies you don't have any brakes but the reversers work so worst case you run off the end of the runway at 20-30 kts.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3707
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:20 am

I should have been more specific.. OK all you have is RAT for power, that I guess gives you enough power to activate the thrust reversers to drop the speed to 60 mph or so ... about then the RAT has insufficient wind so you are now powerless.. BUT your engines are running and the TR's are activated.. so when you stop, you immediately start backing up... or is there another power source someplace that will allow you to shut down the engines, shut off the fuel flow etc? I know this is a really worst case scenario but it's stuck in my mind.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23711
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:25 am

How likely is a scenario where both engines are under power, but all four engine generators have failed? That seems like one of those "one in a billion" scenarios.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:24 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 39):
I should have been more specific.. OK all you have is RAT for power, that I guess gives you enough power to activate the thrust reversers to drop the speed to 60 mph or so ... about then the RAT has insufficient wind so you are now powerless.. BUT your engines are running and the TR's are activated.. so when you stop, you immediately start backing up... or is there another power source someplace that will allow you to shut down the engines, shut off the fuel flow etc? I know this is a really worst case scenario but it's stuck in my mind.

Assuming you have lost all the APU/engine generators, you still have full control of the engines and on the ground the engine reversers which are operated by hydraulic power provided by the engines.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 40):
How likely is a scenario where both engines are under power, but all four engine generators have failed? That seems like one of those "one in a billion" scenarios.

I agree, but fuel starvation with a runway within reach is several times that (despite at least two events on record). But assuming that's the case, the RAT would provide instruments until about 60 kts (?) and the Main battery would stop you or at least slow you down a lot. The scenario that uses the battery for brakes is not based on the fuel starvation/runway available scenario but on the RAT electrics/engines operable scenario.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3707
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:48 am

Thanks.. after three months of outlandish scenarios.. just had to throw one out..      
 
thegeek
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 6:40 am

Main battery out + fuel exhaustion (or other dual engine failure) seems far less outlandish than the prospect of engines still running but 4-6 generators not supplying power.
 
twiga
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:24 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:01 am

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 28):
If any batteries fail and fumes etc emerge then the press are going to be all over this issue. If passenger perception is that the 787 is unsafe they will avoid at all costs.

With your apparent concerns I don't know how much you have been following these threads. For a fuller answer and somewhat of a summary please check my post #108 on thread "FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery......". To give you short answers here. Without the root cause known they have done a lot of modifications to the battery cells and charging system to mitigate further failures and hopefully they have fixed it or at least reduced the frequency of failure. The new battery vented containment vessel is likely designed to that 1: 10 million safety metric the same as 2 engines out for a 2 engine aircraft. With this new containment system there will be no fire because its inerted and no fumes or smoke since they will all be vented overboard together with the heat - in the air at a differential pressure of about 9 to 10 psi and on the ground at the differential pressure of reaction. I suspect a burning battery will be a non-event just like a bun burning in a galley oven. And being a non-event with the changes I doubt that it would even be reported and the press and passengers wouldn't know anything about it.
Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 28):
Personally I think Airbus have made the right decision but Boeing have made a very risky choice.

Boeing didn't have much choice in the circumstances short of causing major delays. Their approach is very innovative since ultimate safety from future battery issues is contained. There are always risks in innovation thats how we progress - its sometimes tricky to manage those risks. I bet 2 to 3 years from now Li-ion batteries will be the norm in aircraft, so getting back to Airbus if their airplanes have a 30 year life are they going to be happy with old technology for that long? At some point you have to jump in and get started.
Quoting hivue (Reply 35):
Quoting holzmann (Thread starter):BUT battery issues and fires resurface within the next six months: how bad would this scenario be for the 787 and Boeing?

So if, say, two more batteries incinerate in the next 50K hours of operation but the containment system works perfectly has the fix been a failure or success?

As I mentioned above I suspect a burning battery will be a non-event, and you don't have to worry about the containment vessel working. Lets look at your question from an airlines point of view. If the battery metric was only doubled to 1:100,000 hrs from the mods and changes and an airline had 50 aircraft in its fleet. For about 200,000 fleet hrs/year that would mean 2 battery change outs/ year - not a big deal about 3 hrs/ per a/c. How many times would a similar fleet change a burst tire from landing/ year - probably about the same. So it will be routine maintenance.
 
User avatar
RobK
Posts: 3308
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 1:43 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:01 am

Quoting twiga (Reply 44):
I suspect a burning battery will be a non-event just like a bun burning in a galley oven. And being a non-event with the changes I doubt that it would even be reported and the press and passengers wouldn't know anything about it.
Quoting twiga (Reply 44):
As I mentioned above I suspect a burning battery will be a non-event

        

Not sure if serious or just trolling...
 
hivue
Posts: 1639
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:12 pm

Quoting twiga (Reply 44):
If the battery metric was only doubled to 1:100,000 hrs

There were 2 battery overheat events in approximatelyly the first 50,000 hrs, which is 1:25,000. So if that got improved by a factor of 2 by the fix it would be 1:50,000.

Quoting twiga (Reply 44):
that would mean 2 battery change outs/ year

So does the fix significantly reduce the chances of battery failure due to over-discharge where the battery has to be swapped out because it can't be recharged in the airplane from a deep-discharge state?
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:15 pm

Quoting thegeek (Reply 43):
Main battery out + fuel exhaustion (or other dual engine failure) seems far less outlandish than the prospect of engines still running but 4-6 generators not supplying power.

First you're looking a the failure of 4 generators as you can dispatch with the APU inop. Second we're not necessarily saying all 4 engine generators fail but rather an issue with the distribution system. The RAT is installed so that the airplane is still flyable with loss of all normal electrical power and/or all hydraulic power. If loss of both engines was more probable than loss of all electric/hydraulic power we wouldn't need a RAT or we would another engine.
 
twiga
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:24 pm

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 6:41 pm

Quoting RobK (Reply 45):
Quoting twiga (Reply 44):I suspect a burning battery will be a non-event just like a bun burning in a galley oven. And being a non-event with the changes I doubt that it would even be reported and the press and passengers wouldn't know anything about it.Quoting twiga (Reply 44):As I mentioned above I suspect a burning battery will be a non-event.

Not sure if serious or just trolling...

If you had read my referenced post you would know I'm dead serious, and I don't have the inclination or time to mess around with the latter. From the tone of your post, because thats all I can read from the "effort" of 7 words, you appear to be one of these    and if you don't trust the engineering of the new steel containment box, what about the other million things, such as the engines with fire heat and parts rotating at 10,000 rpm that could come flying off and puncture the closely adjacent fuel tanks, all things that have been engineered on the airplane? And you are worried about a little steel containment box? For your types I would suggest the bus or the train.
 
thegeek
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: If 787 'fix' Is Short-lived: How Bad For Boeing?

Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:46 pm

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 47):
First you're looking a the failure of 4 generators as you can dispatch with the APU inop

Which is why I said 4-6 generators. You don't always or even often dispatch with the APU inop.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 47):
If loss of both engines was more probable than loss of all electric/hydraulic power we wouldn't need a RAT or we would another engine.

Not sure what you mean. RAT saved the Gimli Glider and probably Air Transat. Probably helped in other cases too. Would have been used in BA9 except that windmilling is deemed sufficient in a 747.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos