Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 71): Careful about the self-stroking - it can lead to penis elbow. BTW, the FAA focus is just the batteries, not the 57 other things you allege is wrong with the aircraft.

Self stroking? Sometimes people need to be told that they were wrong so that they can evaluate their past actions, I personally still don't think that you get it.

So lets recap:

I said - 787 batteries were not in compliance with the FAA certification special condition related to LI-ion batteries, I also posted the relevant special condition.

FAA said - “In addition to the continuing review of the aircraft’s design, manufacture and assembly, the agency also will validate that 787 batteries and the battery system on the aircraft are in compliance with the special condition the agency issued as part of the aircraft’s certification."

So if you want to call that stroking, call it what you want, I like to call it being right and proved right despite the literally 100's of posts calling me out personally as an Airbus supporting conspiracy theorist. I would like to think that some of these posters will take a good hard look at themselves but I really doubt that they will.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 62): As for those who call these "teething problems", "everything will be just fine", etc... there goes your credibility.

This could be "teething problems." Nobody said teething problems could not be serious - just that teething problems can be related to new products.

And - every thing 'is fine' in the terms that matter - safety of passengers. Whether or not it will be proven that "every thing would have been fine" if they had not grounded the a/c is yet to be determined.

The biggest catastrophe - we have more wisdom.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 82): Do you have source for Boeing designing the containment method (rather than Thales or Yuasa)?

No. Good point - the containment may have been designed by either Thales or Yuasa. Probably cooperatively. I'm sure Boeing had input.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 88): That doesn't sound like containment to me

Depends on what you are trying to contain. Contained may not mean hermetically sealed.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 83): So is it reasonable to say the "release of flammable electrolytes" constitutes a "failure of the containment system", and thus the AD and grounding?

I think it is reasonable to say the FAA wants to look at it. We know the battery cannot be 'sealed' because in a runaway it will outgas. You do not want to seal it because then you make - a bomb.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 88): Here's what worries me: all these issues have popped up in rapid secession. What else is wrong with this airframe? What is the next devil we don't know?

Ahh - ghosts in the machine.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 88): You can compare this to the 777 EIS but the 777 didn't have fire and it also wasn't three years late.

But the 777 did have a design issue with the fuel/oil heat ex changer that caused an airframe loss in London. Only the actions of the crew prevented a much worse accident. That happened years after EIS.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 91): Just to nit pick a bit more, the FAA does NOT said the containment method does not work. They are investigating IF it works

They didn't even say that. They said they are investigation the battery/battery systems. I presume that includes the containment system.

Quoting RicknRoll (Reply 100): They explicitly say that liquids have escaped from the containment vessel that have the potential to damage wiring and other components, leaving a brown stain on the inside of the compartment where the battery is housed.

Bit of wordsmithing here to emphasize your point. I would recommend people actually read the FAA news release here.
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=14233

Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 105): I am disappointed too, but Boeing management went global for its componet suppliers, and this supply chain has had more than its fair share of difficulties with quality controls.

Frankly - I find this a bit insulting and I'm not Japanese. Compared to Boeing, Yuasa is vastly more experienced with Li-Ion Batteries.

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Reply 108): IIRC some of Boeing glory years were while the CEO was not an engineer. But it was an engineering oriented company.

I worked for an engineering company that was run by both engineers and not engineers. I can't say either was better or worse. But I would say I worked for a number of good engineers who were promoted to managers and they sucked. The best manager I ever worked for - as an engineer - had a degree in music. Then again - the B*stard that torpedoed me and go me laid of was a business major.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 136): This is the thing, I am not convinced the issue is the battery itself,

Nobody claims it is. It could be a number of things.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 18): I was coming to the conclusion that a grounding was going to be necessary from a PR point of view after this 2nd Li-Ion incident. Most people won't be comfortable with the 2nd event being labelled as 'random' or 'an unfortunate statistical grouping'.

The FAA is not in the business of promoting a PR point of view.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 29): Yeah, I got talked down to kind of snarkily at the end of the last thread for suggesting that the PR angle was going to give Boeing a tough choice. I may be a noob here, and not a pilot or aviator, but I'm experienced in business affairs enough to know that the focus cannot always be solely engineering, even in the ivory tower of aviation purism. Boeing is marketing a product, just as Whirlpool makes stoves. A very complicated product, sure. But once the public starts hearing about repeated fires, they eventually think twice about booking flights. You have to do something to restore public trust. I applaud a decision that some may think hasty, on the grounds of the old adage, "a stitch in time saves nine." Stop the bleeding now.

This was an emergency AD issued by a government agency. This was not Boeing issuing a directive or a campaign to save face. Boeing must demonstrate to the FAA that the batteries are safe.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 149): I'm happy to be corrected but I thought the containment system was focused on "thermal containment" i.e. if the battery burned, the fire couldn't spread beyond the battery containment box?

The containment system has nothing to do with this really, the certification special requirement was for the battery to remain intact not about the containment of breaches or fires.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 152): Self stroking?

Ya, you know, like this:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 10): So the FAA sides with me and Daysleeper against A.net. and for exactly the reasons I came to

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 10): this isn't rocket science but 99% of the message board was on the wrong side of this. At last I have become one of the 1%

Those, for example.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 152): despite the literally 100's of posts calling me out personally as an Airbus supporting conspiracy theorist.

Can't imagine why?  

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 152): I would like to think that some of these posters will take a good hard look at themselves but I really doubt that they will.

Wow. In the process, do you ever reflect on your comments? Just curious.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 153): The biggest catastrophe - we have more wisdom.

Ha ha ha ha  

-Dave

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 154): This was an emergency AD issued by a government agency. This was not Boeing issuing a directive or a campaign to save face. Boeing must demonstrate to the FAA that the batteries are safe.

Yeah, sorry, I didn't write that clearly. All day I've been writing a bit fuzzy without being crystal clear, and have been misunderstood by several posters.

I knew it was an FAA directive. What I meant was that I applauded the FAA decision. But I thought that Boeing really did have a tough decision to make.

FAA saved them a tough choice.


Sorry for not being clearer!

I can see one UA 788 in the air still but coming into Tokyo. I can't see any others globally.
Real shame to the Dreamliner, but hopefully fixes will be made and many more in the skies soon.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 31): AI will keep flying the 787 domestically or regionally?

DGCA of India has ordered grounding of the AI 787s on the 16th.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 45): Thales makes parts for Airbus planes, as well.

Including the infamous Pitot Tubes that are no longer used.

Quoting kurtjeter (Reply 95): Yes. True. But wasn't some design modification made to the cargo door following this--or perhaps following the Paris DC-10 crash?

Cargo door mod was after the THY Paris crash. The Chicago crash had nothing to do with cargo doors.

Although this would cost the industry a lot, grounding the fleet might actually be for the better.

If the incidences do indeed point to specific problems, they can be rectified and the 787 can return to the skies safer than ever.

As opposed to problems going uncorrected which may lead to a potentially fatal incident, which would cost a lot more.

Quoting brons2 (Reply 129): How much more would a lead-acid battery with equivalent capacity weigh?

Danger - science content ahead.

We've been talking about the high energy density of a Li-Ion battery - me included - so I thought I'd do a little research into that.

Stupid me - I already know the answer. Otherwise we'd have electric cars that run farther than gasoline cars.

So - lets look.
There is a spec sheet pointed at by one of the reports for a Yuasa Li-Ion battery cell that is reportedly the same or similar to the ones in the battery on the 787. Looking at the NTSB pictures - it looks like there are 8 of these cells in the 787 batteries. Given the reported dimensions of the battery pack, and the Yuasa cells - it looks like these cells are, at least, close to the ones for the LVP 65 on the spec sheet.
http://www.s399157097.onlinehome.us/SpecSheets/LVP10-65.pdf

That cell is listed has having a energy density of 232 Wh/l or 0.232 KWh/l. This, by the way, is right in the middle of the range of energy densities for li-Ion batteries.

Now 0.28 KWh is ~ 1 MJ - so these batteries have a a energy density of about 0.82 MJ/L
Using the LPV 65 battery - the volume of the battery is 1.17l. There are 8 of them - so the volume is 9.36l.
The energy stored is 9.36 * 0.82 = 6.75 MJ

Let's compare that to Jet-A. Jet A has a energy density of ~ 33MJ/L. That means that the energy in the battery is about the same as 200ml of Jet A.

The beer I drank while doing this was 330ml. (That is a hint as to my state of mind - add in that it is darn near midnight here).

The 787 carries (max) about 126,000 L of Jet fuel.

This is totally meaningless and irrelevant to the investigation - but I found it interesting that the energy in the fuel on the 787 is roughly 300,000 times the energy in the battery.

Just perspective.
Gasoline is ~36MJ/l driving your typical car - you have 298 787 batteries in your tank. All protected by a containment system (tank).
Please - spare me the silly comments about how gasoline does not have a failure mode where it runs away and burns - I know that.
It is late - I'm tired - I just thought this perspetive was interesting.

BTW - a Lead Acid battery has about 1/7th the energy density (per kg this time) that a Li-Ion does.

[Edited 2013-01-16 22:55:50]

Quoting holzmann (Reply 42): Thales ... Airbus ...

I am shocked by this statement. Seems that you are very very dissapointed to develop such a "theory". Psychology at it's best...

Does anybody have an idea how long this grounding will take? Days? Weeks?

Quoting holzmann (Reply 33): I feel sorry for the hard-working, average (non-management) Boeing employees and their families that have suffered through this terrible birth of a modern airliner.

I hear what you're saying but how much of the 787 is actually made in the United States?
Hasn't production been outsourced to over a dozen different countries?

Quoting todareisinger (Reply 49): I hope the 787 project will not become a university study subject on "How one bad project management can kill a giant".......

I doubt the 787 will become what the CED VideoDisc was to RCA.
Boeing will do fine overall.
I just wish there were more orders for the 747-8I.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 157):

Got it!

Quoting CO953 (Reply 157): FAA saved them a tough choice.

Arguably, this kept Boeing from not making a choice- at least until the next potential 787 incident.

Interestingly, in 2006 a test of the 787 battery system caused a fire that burned down the admin building of the company that made the charger. Subsequently, one of the staff of said company was involved in a lawsuit against the company where he made allegations about the safety of the 787's battery system.

For more:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...x-are-fading/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

http://victimsoflaw.net/Leon_Securaplane.htm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 153): But the 777 did have a design issue with the fuel/oil heat ex changer that caused an airframe loss in London. Only the actions of the crew prevented a much worse accident. That happened years after EIS.

And the 737 had a rudder design flaw, and the DC-10 had a cargo door flaw, etc. etc.

I'm not sure what the point is of arguments that compare the 787's flaws to other airplanes'. If the 787 has a flaw that has become apparent - and it does - then it needs to be fixed, and it shouldn't fly until it has been. It doesn't matter what happened with other planes in the past.

The 737 really should have been grounded as well once it became apparent that there was a mysterious fault with the rudder system - it took two accidents and a third near-accident before that was solved, at the cost of many lives (and very nearly others). That's why the FAA is right in taking this action with the 787, although having only 50 in service in the world no doubt made that decision easier. Obviously they have not made the same decision with regard to planes that are more common but that have potentially even more serious systemic faults.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 153): Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 136): This is the thing, I am not convinced the issue is the battery itself, Nobody claims it is. It could be a number of things.

Many people in this thread alone have claimed it's the battery by itself, mostly people still clinging to the idea that there is not a systemic problem with the 787.

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 154): The FAA is not in the business of promoting a PR point of view.

The FAA has a dual role of promoting safety and encouraging aerospace travel. 50% of their mission is to "promote a PR point of view". This has been a bone of contention for the FAA's critics since the day the agency was founded.

Not that I think this grounding is some sort of reverse psychology PR stunt... but the conflicting dual role is always enough to give critics on the other side ammunition against pretty much anything they do, whichever side of any issue you happen to be on. A conspiracy theorist could argue that this is all a dog and pony show to calm down the plane's critics.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 156): Wow. In the process, do you ever reflect on your comments? Just curious.

Yup I do. You clearly are not that self aware..

Now do you have any comment on the substance of my post, ie I was right? Or are you still in denial..

[Edited 2013-01-16 23:12:49]

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 162): Does anybody have an idea how long this grounding will take? Days? Weeks?

I will be surprised if it's not weeks, or even longer.

First, they need to figure out what the problem actually is. Then, they need to figure out how to fix it. Then, they need to test that fix, then they need to have the FAA certify it. Then they need to fix all the planes in service.

Note some of the wording in the FAA's statement. There's no question in their mind of keeping things as they are. Boeing's not going to "convince" them that everything's fine if they just put new batteries in. They're requiring a "corrective action plan" as the first step - in other words, "tell us how you're going to fix this", not "let's see if there's a problem". They're beyond that.

There's obviously economic impetus to do all this as quickly as possible - in fact, the grounding means it's probably going to happen a lot faster than it would have otherwise. But it's still a multi-step process. It's not a question of just inspecting planes and then sending them back out, as some have suggested. The FAA is requiring a fix be implemented, tested and demonstrated to be safe before they'll let these planes fly again, and so far nobody even knows what the root cause of all this is.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 151): It's a bad battery......

To be honest, we don't know that, which is probably one of the reasons why the plane has been grounded. The battery might be perfectly good, but the system managing the charge of the battery is overcharging it in certain conditions.

Kind of puts the kibosh on the idea of a hybrid electric aircraft. Imagine these batteries in larger sizes and quantities.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 167):

A comment on your self-engrandizing? I thought that was already covered.

As far as me being in denial, what have I stated that you would dub "in denial", unless you mean in denial of your 1%-ness? Was there some fact I misspoke on? Something I said that you disagreed with?

-Dave

Quoting CM (Reply 142): The main battery is a no-go item as it provides standby power to the captain's instrument bus.

Trying to avoid the emotional baggage and just looking at things logically here. CM, the inquiring mind wonders who the supplier of the main battery is? Is it also Yuasa?

Yuasa is based in Kyoto and has been pretty mum in the Japanese press so far...I expect an onslaught any day now though.

I was wondering whether the AD will also prevent Boeing from conducting test, delivery and ferry flights? If so, how long can the AD remain in effect before it starts having consequences on Boeing's calendar?

I'm pretty sure someone stated that both the main battery and the APU battery had the same part number.

-Dave

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 172): Is it also Yuasa?

I'm not CM, but somebody (either CM or Tdscanuk) said the part number was the same and the batteries could be swapped. The APU battery could be put in for the main battery thus allowing the a/c to fly with a MEL on the APU.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 172): Yuasa is based in Kyoto and has been pretty mum in the Japanese press so far...I expect an onslaught any day now though.

Why? The Japanese don't care who the supplier of the battery is. It's a plane designed, built and tested by Boeing, and the one that evac'd yesterday is owned and flown by ANA. Those are the entities the Japanese are going to be concerned about. They're not going to blame some minor sub-contract supplier. It might prove a minor curiosity to them to know that the batteries were actually made in Japan, but it's still a Boeing plane flown by ANA. Remember when Sony had those exploding batteries in some VAIO notebooks a few years ago? It would have seemed ludicrous for Sony to turn around and blame the Chinese battery maker - Sony built and certified the laptops, so they took the responsibility for it. It's the same here.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 166): The FAA has a dual role of promoting safety and encouraging aerospace travel. 50% of their mission is to "promote a PR point of view". This has been a bone of contention for the FAA's critics since the day the agency was founded.

The original charter of the FAA (see the 1926 Air Commerce Act) did include "promotion" of the industry. Although the legal definition of that part of their charter has not changed, the culture of the FAA has long since abandoned proactively promoting the industry in their ACO (cert) office (I'm differentiating from the AEG group and other parts of the FAA). From decades working to certify aircraft for Boeing, I can tell you the FAA-ACO often seems adversarial in the process, occasionally as partners and never as cheerleaders, like you might expect from someone who is "promoting" the industry.

The well known examples of the FAA getting a little too friendly and helpful with the industry are not from the ACO. They were generally PMIs looking the other way when there are problems at "their" airline. Classic examples at ValueJet and Southwest come to mind. It was a result of these issues with PMIs that the FAA took very proactive steps to remove any sense of "promoting" the industry from their culture. You can see that in everything from the revised charter you will find on their website to the practice of constantly rotating resident reps in order to prevent them from getting too attached to the airline they are working with.

When it comes to how the FAA type certifying an aircraft out of their ACO office, here's a very relevant and representative viewpoint from a retired FAA specialist...

"It's not part of the equation," said Kenneth M. Lauterstein, who worked at the F.A.A. for 26 years, in aircraft certification and other fields, and is now a consultant. "You have regulations, you look at the data, you witness the test, you decide whether what you observe meets the requirements of the Federal aviation regulations," he said. "I never thought for one second, is this going to help promote aviation or not."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/24/us...ng-for-a-new-faa-focus.html?src=pm

Just out of curiosity I went to united.com and tried to book LAX-NRT for tomorrow (1/18) and DEN-NRT for 4/1 (I figured the inaugural flight on 3/31 was probably already sold out with local dignitaries, media members, etc. as well as people actually going to NRT). Both showed availability and both showed 787 as the equipment. I realize that:
1. LAX-NRT is an important enough route that UA will probably keep fliying it with different equipment.
2. The grounding is unlikely to last for 2 1/2 months.

However, is it really right for UA to be selling tickets for a flight that uses an aircraft that's currently grounded by the FAA? I'm not accounting for a possible equipemtn swap on DEN-NRT because UA has admitted the arrival of the 787 is what makes the route feasible. BTW, UA32 is showing cancelled for today (1/17) but operating with a 787 for 1/18.

I haven't seen any official announcement, but I think we can nevertheless add Ethiopian's to the list of grounded 787 fleet.

Today's 787 flights to JNB and HRE-LUN are operated by a B77L and a B763 respectively.

Quoting bobdino (Reply 165): Interestingly, in 2006 a test of the 787 battery system caused a fire that burned down the admin building of the company that made the charger. Subsequently, one of the staff of said company was involved in a lawsuit against the company where he made allegations about the safety of the 787's battery system.

These were lithium-ion batteries made by Secureplane. They are small (about the size of a deck of cards) and are used in the emergency cabin lighting system. They are not the same batteries which are currently having problems.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 172):

Yes, both the main and APU batteries are made by GS Yuasa.

[Edited 2013-01-17 00:00:04]

I hope they get this thing back in the air in a hurry. This thing is giving Boeing one hell of a migraine. I am more of a Douglas/Airbus fan but the 787 is my favorite Boeing, it looks stunning.....but only with the gear up!

On a funny side note: I just read the news 15 minutes ago and decided to check a.net when this message popped up. Couldn't load the site for a while. The FAA has some serious power hahaha

Hi

In the Danish media, it is now reported that the European Authorities has grounded it as well.

Link:
http://epn.dk/brancher/transport/luft/article4985428.ece

(Sorry in Danish only)

Not a real surprise, - the situation is from "bad to worse".

KR.

------------
EDIT:
Discussed here: European Regulator Adopts FAA's 787 Grounding (by nuckleuz Jan 17 2013 in Civil Aviation)

[Edited 2013-01-17 02:30:56]

Quoting AltairF28 (Reply 178): However, is it really right for UA to be selling tickets for a flight that uses an aircraft that's currently grounded by the FAA?

Assuming that the flight can be fulfilled by other equipment if necessary then why on earth not? Strange question.

This all goes to show why the likes of British Airways are refusing to be launch customers for a new type any more, especially with such a radically new plane like the 787...

I can't see any other reference in this thread to the actual AD, I could have missed it, so here it is:

AD.nsf/0/8a1a8dc3135b60dd86257af60004cf4a/$FILE/2013-02-51_Emergency.pdf" target="_blank">http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...f4a/$FILE/2013-02-51_Emergency.pdf

From the way the requirements are worded, they are still not sure of the exact problem:

AD Requirements
This AD requires modification of the battery system, or other actions, in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

There is more to come on this. What? No idea, but keep watching!

Gemuser

I am sure that the FAA did their very best to certify this aircraft- to the best of their abilities.However the knowledge they have is built up over many years testing aircraft after aircraft.

But here comes along comes an aircraft (to quote Apple) "that changes everything".Whilst the 787 may look (to consumers) similar to aircraft that preceded it in fact it is totally different on just about every level.The technologies applied are brand new, from the carbon fuse, to all electric and many,many others besides.

The FAA have no historical data ,precident or expertise to go on with this aircraft.Technilogically it has even stretched Boeing to the absolute limit, I do wonder whether the FAA and other bodies around the world may be perhaps a little out of their depth with this aircraft. It is not to criticise. I just wonder how one certifies such an aircraft with the levels of historical certainty that they had with "conventional" aircraft when they have nothing historically to go on.

Understanding and certifying an "all electric" aircraft is but one of these brand new technologies.It must be very difficult.

For the sake of consumer confidence of this truely great aircraft I believe they have made the right decision.They should now take their time.Not only look at the imediate battery issue but perhaps use the time to look at all and any other issues that have raised their heads over the short period in service.

The very worst thing would be if this aircraft went back into service quickly only to be grounded for a different set of reasons later. If this were to happen I dread to think what consumers would make of the Dreamliner and indeed the FAA/Boeing. There is much at stake here..

After ANA and JAL grounded their fleets, I don't think the FAA had much choice.

Imagine the repocussions if a 787 had gone down over the pacific or Atlantic and the FAA hadn't ordered a fleet grounding.

Hopefully this grounding will be an overeation, but its better be safe than sorry.

Quoting flood (Reply 22): the agency also will validate that 787 batteries and the battery system on the aircraft are in compliance with the special condition the agency issued as part of the aircraft’s certification.

IMO the problem could have been, that these conditions have been met, but the written conditions itself have been incomplete or even faulty.

Here is the critical condition as issued by the agency (posted by BoeingVista in this thread FAA Announces New Comprehensive 787 Review (by dcann40 Jan 11 2013 in Civil Aviation)#1):

Quote: Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Boeing Model 787-8 airplane. In lieu of the requirements of 14 CFR 25.1353(c)(1) through (c)(4), the following special conditions apply. Lithium ion batteries on the Boeing Model 787-8 airplane must be designed and installed as follows: (1) Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained during any foreseeable charging or discharging condition and during any failure of the charging or battery monitoring system not shown to be extremely remote. The lithium ion battery installation must preclude explosion in the event of those failures.

These conditions only ask to the battery to have safe temperatures while the battery is not charged or discharged. In other words these terms allow the battery to start burning in idle state!!! It was tdscanuck who reminded me that I was wrong assuming otherwise:

Quote: That clause also relies on your assumption (status as yet unproven) that the event occurred during a charge or discharge condition.

He also confirmed, that the battery for most of the time is not in charging or discharging state:

Quote: For the vast majority of its life, the APU battery just sits there and isn't in either state.

(All quotes from the mentioned thread).

Go figure! The battery state which happens the most is not covered by the conditions as issued by the agency!

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 38): If they are still trying to "figure it out" then it could be a while before they are back in the air.

My guess is, that the cell balancer wiring has been faulty. As quadcopter RC pilot I know, the cells must be connected correctly to the balancer. Note: this is a wild guess from uneducated observer.

Just like Ethiopian Airlines, Qatar Airways has made no official announcement that I could find, but their fleet is grounded as well. Flights that were scheduled to be operated by a 787 have reportedly all seen an equipment change so far today.

So all 787s are grounded.

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 185): Hopefully this grounding will be an overeation, but its better be safe than sorry.

Certainly not an overreaction. Lets just hope that the problems can be solved soon.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 187): Qatar Airways has made no official announcement that I could find, but their fleet is grounded as well.

From their facebook page:

Quote: QATAR AIRWAYS STATEMENT ON BOEING 787s Following instructions by both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States and Qatar’s Civil Aviation Authority, Qatar Airways is implementing the Airworthiness Directive issued by the FAA for all operators of the Boeing 787 to ground the aircraft, effective today 17 January 2013. Qatar Airways Chief Executive Officer Akbar Al Baker said: “I previously stated that Qatar Airways will only stop operating our Dreamliners if we receive such an instruction from regulators. “Safety remains the number one priority for Qatar Airways. We ensure all our aircraft meet the most stringent safety standards and this will not be compromised in any way. “In light of recent events surrounding the Boeing 787 Dreamliner worldwide, we are actively working with Boeing and the regulators to restore full customer confidence in the 787. “Qatar Airways will resume 787 operations when we are clear that the aircraft meets the full requirements of the Airworthiness Directive and our standards which assure the safety of our passengers and crew at all times. So we are not flying the aircraft until and only such a time this is achieved. “Qatar Airways would like to express our sincere apologies to passengers booked on our 787 flights, but we are sure they will understand our concerns in view of recent events with other 787 operators around the world. Our staff are assisting all affected passengers to be accommodated on other flights to get them to their final destination with minimum inconvenience.” Qatar Airways currently has five Boeing 787-8 aircraft in its fleet.

So FAA grounded 787, this is a very minus point for a.net to delete a thread yesterday about a petition to FAA to ground it and Boeing lawyers hassling this forum to shut their mouth, "democracy in full swing"

Quoting caliatenza (Reply 144):

well took them longer than I thought they would take, but as I have said before Air India will dine out on this for ever. Get ready for the longest drawn out whinge fest in history!

Now we can add Qatar to the list

Qatar Airways grounds Boeing 787 Dreamliners, cancels Perth-Doha debut

Qatar Airways has grounded its fleet of Boeing 787s and cancelled the planned a February 1 commencement of a daily Perth-Doha 787 service, which was to be Australia's first regular flight on Boeing's next-gen jetliner.

That Perth-Doha flight has now been replaced in Qatar's timetable by an extension of the current Boeing 777 aircraft.

“Safety remains the number one priority for Qatar Airways" said Qatar Airways Chief Executive Officer Akbar Al Baker.

“Qatar Airways will resume 787 operations when we are clear that the aircraft meets the full requirements of the Airworthiness Directive and our standards which assure the safety of our passengers and crew at all times."

http://www.ausbt.com.au/qatar-airway...eamliners-cancels-perth-doha-debut

Quoting CM (Reply 178): These were lithium-ion batteries made by Secureplane. They are small (about the size of a deck of cards) and are used in the emergency cabin lighting system. They are not the same batteries which are currently having problems.

This Flightglobal article ( http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...7-into-uncharted-territory-381148/ ) references a GS Yuasa battery being involved in the fire:

Quote: In 2006, Securaplane's administration building "burned to the ground" because of a botched laboratory test involving a GS Yuasa battery designed for the 787...

Is this a totally different battery to the APU/main battery that's caused all this stress? If so, my apologies for the mixup.

ch-aviation has published the specific status of each B787!
http://www.ch-aviation.ch/blog/2013/...rrent-status-of-b787-8-operations/

Lots of dull and glum for the 787/boeing..Seeing as the problem seems to be in the one area im sure they will have it sorted soon!

Quoting a36001 (Reply 191): as I have said before Air India will dine out on this for ever. Get ready for the longest drawn out whinge fest in history!

Why are you so fixated on Air India? What have they done to you? This issue is much bigger than that!

Quoting capri (Reply 190): So FAA grounded 787, this is a very minus point for a.net to delete a thread yesterday about a petition to FAA to ground it and Boeing lawyers hassling this forum to shut their mouth, "democracy in full swing"

I completely agree. The post was deleted because it was deemed to be of 'low quality' but it was well written, albeit controversial. The number of Boeing employees who are also mods on here can sometimes lead to convenient bypass of the first amendment, which really sucks considering this is a US website!

Yesterday was a sad day for one of my favourite websites!

Flightaware shows an ANA flight from Tokyo to Seattle in the air.

Are they returning the aircraft?

http://de.flightaware.com/live/flight/ANA1078

The 787, in my opinion, is the ultimate example of what happens when executives become more focused on the stock price than they are on the product. Boeing, like many US companies over the past decade or two, didn't just outsource production and design. They outsourced their own credibility and their ability to control the end result in an effort to save a few bucks. In the process, these corporations helped to accelerate the decline of the middle class, a group they all ultimately depend on for the success of their businesses. This kind of shortsighted, small picture thinking has become endemic, as MBAs tend to be herd animals.

There are two bright spots in this that I take comfort from. One, we can be confident that the 787 will be made safe, because BCA's survival depends upon it. Two, American executives are learning some hard lessons right now. GE, for instance, had recognized that their outsourcing of appliance manufacturing led to degraded quality, a more difficult design process, lessened innovation, and a loss of efficiency. Outsourcing did not, however, reduce costs once all factors were accounted for. GE is bringing assembly lines for big ticket appliances back home as a result. I can only hope Boeing is taking these lessons to heart as well, and that they will design and manufacture all of their next new airframe in their own facilities and with their own workers. It wouldn't just be better for Boeing, it would be better their country as well.

I should add that I don't necessarily believe that the specific battery issues are purely a result of outsourcing. After all, one can hardly expect Boeing to design and manufacture the batteries it uses. But the progress of the program as a whole speaks volumes about the business model Boeing executives chose to follow.