Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
packsonflight
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:58 am

Quoting CM (Reply 38):
>> In my opinion, it is quite awkwardly worded, which is not helping us dissect the words with any success.

I dont see any grounds for you frustration with the FAA statement, but that appears to be in line with the story cooked up in Boeing media room, so possibly it is your job.....

Quoting CM (Reply 38):
Potential Consequences:
>>Damage to critical systems and structure

I miss one thing from your personal thoughts on the FAA statement and I think that you should read it again.
It says that there where actual heat damages in the compartment but not potential damages, and further more that the damages "could result in damage to critical systems and structures"

I dont see the problem here....
 
smolt
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 12:11 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:32 am

A news says that the battery is sent to JAXA in Tokyo (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) for inspection using CT scanning to aquire mulitple layers image.
Then will be sent to GS Yuasa in Kyoto, to get its engineer's interview.

I am impressed that people tend to pay much more attention ONLY to the battery itself, than WHAT made the battery malfunction. I am very interested in if charging system worked fine. Any successful battery can not put up with excessive overcharging. I wonder if flight data recorder or something will tell us how much voltage and current had been applied to the battery? If something does, how long will it take?

Also just interesting is if the battery is pressured and air conditioned? If not, can the lithium put up with so frequently
pressure and temperature going ups and downs inside commercial aircraft?

smolt

[Edited 2013-01-22 02:10:33]
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:44 am

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 2):
Still no. That document specifically says the balance capability is for nicad and nimh. It does not do Lithium because it's not that simple.

Sorry, this time your are wrong. On the bottom of page 40 you e.g. find the display, where a lipo battery is charged using the balancer socket. The balancer has even primarily been introduced for the lipos. For the rest, there is not that much benefit from a balancer.

Maybe a better market overview about balancing lipo chargers you get from here:
http://www.google.com/#q=lipo+charge...p=fe2613289fff8d5f&biw=995&bih=414

It is a mass market, and it really is not rocket science. Very cheap and stupid devices sport a balancer feature.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 2):
You have to have an intelligent device that can look at the voltage/current/time charging curve to decide if the cell is losing capacity, leaking or ready to run away.

Using the balancer, the charger can detect if the voltage over any cell raises beyond safe levels, which gives a very reliable feedback about an overcharging condition. Of course the voltage needs to be measured very precisely (4.2V is ok, 4.2V + 1% is dangerous). In case a cell reaches that max voltage, the charger would start to lead the current "around" instead of "into" that cell to avoid further charging. The result is, that the charger starts to charge all cells, and because not all cells reach the full capacity at the same time, one cell after another is "switched off"...
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
FlyingAY
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:26 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:45 am

Quoting smolt (Reply 51):
I wonder if flight data recorder or something will tell us how much voltage and current had been applied to the battery?

And how can we know that the measurement is correct? I know of cases where LiPo batteries have burned down because the voltage measurement in the charger was not correct... Obviously if there are multiple measurements done by different kinds of devices and these measurements agree, that should give an answer for this.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:51 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
And we are fortunate that we have members who understand these exact technicalities in this specific field and have tried very hard to provide specific definitions so that these incidents can be correctly and accurately discussed.

Ditto that.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 46):
Does this not bother anybody else?

Not me. At this point, the NTSB is reporting observations, not conclusions. For instance, they don't say how extensive any damage was, what exactly were the damages and to what degree were those things damaged. To that extent, they leave themselves open to interpretation.

I don't see CM's post as denigrating anybody...he says the NTSB could be clearer and/or more informative, which would certainly be nice.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 50):
I dont see any grounds for you frustration with the FAA statement, but that appears to be in line with the story cooked up in Boeing media room, so possibly it is your job.....

Why the cheap shot? So far, I've considered CM's interpretations logical and even handed. If you disagree with his analysis, say so...no need for insults.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 50):

I miss one thing from your personal thoughts on the FAA statement and I think that you should read it again.
It says that there where actual heat damages in the compartment but not potential damages, and further more that the damages "could result in damage to critical systems and structures"

The statement says heat was released, not that there was heat damage. It doesn't say the damages 'could result in damage to critical systems and structures, read the quote again'

Quoting CM (Reply 38):
"There have been battery failures on two separate Model 787 airplanes. The battery failures included the release of flammable electrolytes, heat, and smoke, and the potential of a fire in the electrical compartment. If not corrected, these conditions could result in damage to critical systems and structures."

Let me try break it down; It says "If not corrected", (the batteries catching fire), "these conditions", (the release of flammable electrolytes, heat, and smoke), 'could', (which means they have the potential to, without giving any probability of it happening), "result in damage to critical systems and structures", (and not that they did in either case this time).

So you interpreted the statement one way, CM another, and I another yet...just like everybody in this thread has been doing.
What the...?
 
KC135Hydraulics
Posts: 443
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:05 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:07 am

I have a picture of the KC-135 battery arrangement coming soon for those of you unfamiliar with it. It will make you cringe. The "containment" is the..... Well I'll let the picture do the talking!
MSgt, USAF
KC-135R / C-17A Pneudraulic Systems Mechanic Supervisor
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3678
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:35 am

Quoting yeelep (Reply 47):
Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 43):
Wait, what "valve actuator" ? Also, is the investigation taking a serious turn, or is the press fishing for a story?

Could be in connection with the inadvertent fuel dumping.

Yes. There was a statement about this in the Sunday English papers, but can't find it.
The fuel valve that spilled fuel had an actuator made in the UK.

Quoting smolt (Reply 32):
1. There was a hole of several centimeters under belly, and, from which, a mark of something brown (soot?) having
flowed backwards. (what is this hole for?)

This the equipment cooling airflow exit. It is normally closed in flight, but is opened by the crew when they have a warning about equipment cooling. Either low flow or smoke will mean that this valve gets opened in flight as well. It is normally open at the gate with the engines off.
 
liquidair
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 2:01 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:49 am

This discussion of containment, not containment- risk, not risk.... Seems irrelevant to me.

I'm no engineer, pilot or expert- buy I do know that I wouldn't get on a plane where things catch fire.

The fact of the matter is that accidents happen when an unforseen set of events come together to create an incredibly improbable outcome.

And whichever way you look at it, pissing out liquid stuff all over the EE bay is not good design- it's a failure.
trying to stop my gaseous viscosity go liquid
 
alfablue
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:16 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:32 pm

"Ladies and gentlemen this is your captain speaking - Sorry to interrupt your lunch but we have some indications that we might have a battery fire on board. At present we are about 3 h away from a place where we can safely land but if the confinement works we shall be lucky and continue to our destination. If not I hope we don't loose too many vital systems before we are able to pull another USAirways-Hudson river stunt. You will be pleased to hear that this state of the art and recently certified airliner has a much better watering capability than previous generation aircraft due to its carbon structure..."

It puzzles me as to how much ignorance I can read out of some of the posts and how much frustration some readers must feel who have a correct understanding about aviation safety. I could write a book long post now but will try to keep it as short as possible and just discuss some aspects of recent events. On-board fires, containment and operational consequences.

There are systems installed on aircraft which are a last chance type of thing to prevent the loss of lives in a worst case scenario. Those system are not to be used in normal operation (nacelle reinforcement, fuel dumping systems, alternate flight control laws, stick-shakers and the list goes on).

Fire is among the most dangerous if not the most dangerous condition on an aircraft. It has killed many people and caused numerous hull losses (Swissair MD11, Air Canada DC9, British Airtours B737, Saudi L1011, ValueJet DC9, Concorde,... And this list can easily be expanded). On ETOPS flights I have to be able to suppress a cargo fire during the lengths of the ETOPS part). In the cabin I have many tools to fight fires from self protection (smoke hood) to extinguishing (fire extinguishers) plus repetitive crew training and examination on the subject. Each engine and APU which both by default have a hot section has to have two powerful extinguishers to kill any fire and some people try to argue now on this forum that a containment is enough and proven to be safe? This batteries catch fire for unknown reasons at unknown intervals and me as a pilot, I have no means to put it out but let it just burn out and hope it does not damage anything vital while it burns for one hour! Do some of you posters here know what you are suggesting I have to ask myself?

A good example of containment and certification and unpredictability are engine nacelles as previous mentioned in a very well written post. We have two uncontained engine failures which claim lives (A DC9 engine failure where parts of the exploding engine travel trough the fuselage and kill people and the famous UA DC10 accident where parts of the failing engine kill hydraulics and make the plane difficult to handle). Regulations change and demand that nacelles have to contain those catastrophic events and it becomes part of the certification process including tests where engines are purposely destroyed to prove the containment works. A new aircraft gets certified and what a surprise - the very first time this new engine explodes in normal operation debris leaves the containment and destroys vital systems and leads to a grounding, checks, rework and modifications (A380 and RR for the ones who didn't get it yet). The Qantas incident was never supposed to happen and yet it did but only few criticized the failure of the nacelle (which should have contained the debris of an exploding engine).

Reading some of the posts defending the container as a prove of safety is just beyond missing or understanding what safety means. For some armchair CEO, safety experts and wanna be pilots I can promise you that a fire outside the engine hot section is a non acceptable risk no matter what underlying statistic tools you use for its likelihood or its containment. So for Boeing to offer an all electric jet it used the lightest technologies available and now it turns out it was a mistake. That battery technology has exploded in laptops, cars and in its aviation adaptation it caused a burned down building (promoting special conditions for its use) and two incidents plus the change of named technology in favor of more proven older technology (Cessna). The E&E compartments are no hot sections - the airflow design (that smoke goes overboard) is an additional safety feature if it burns but does not make fires there an acceptable condition. No airline, authority or pilot union will accept to fly that design (just let the failing batteries burn out inside its so safe containment box).

So now operationally that means anytime one of those batteries catches fire (real or suspected) I make an emergency landing and evacuate. That's exactly what would happen (suspecting an inextinguishable fire). When Qatar has all its Dreamliner's it can try to accommodate 200 passenger somewhere on the Maldives every ten days and send a cleaning crew to clean up the E&E compartment from spilled electrolytes and just change the burned out battery and all deployed emergency slides. I think some of you on this forum think that with a burning battery in a container I just roll to the gate, disembark normally and dispatch again one hour after an emergency landing caused by an on-board fire.

Boeing wanted to go all electric and did so with a technology that is very difficult to handle, prompting special conditions for its use and after the first incident a review was ordered which became a grounding after the second incident. IMHO this technology should have not been approved for airline operation and contrary to what many seem to believe here the JAL Boston incident would have warranted a grounding already. This aircraft has a deeply flawed electrical system and the recent incidents just made that very clear to very many people. Only very naive people will think that there is an easy fix and that the 787 will do long ocean crossings again in a few days.

Sorry it got a book sized post now anyways - just had to write it off my mind. I am flying commercial airliners (MD83, A320 family) for 15 years and eight of those as PIC. Some of the posts on this topic seem to try to downplay this as a no-event but I have the feeling that it will turn out as the exact opposites - the bets are on I would say.

Thanx for reading this post and I assure you that some of you will land on my respected users list while other won't. As a pilot and aviation enthusiast I will avoid flying the Dreamliner if the aircraft is cleared to fly with a simple software fix (as some believe or hope for) as I don't want to be on-board an aircraft where a fire is seen as a controllable, manageable and safe condition (honestly I couldn't care less if the containment worked so far - who tells me it will do the same job next time a battery lights up). This whole discussion about whether the grounding was justified or if the aircraft is safe really irritates me. Burning batteries, emergencies, a design review followed by a grounding and some still think this has nothing whatsoever to do with safety?

AlfaBlue
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:33 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 46):
On one hand you say that the NTSB are the only agency authorised to issue statements then on the other you as a Boeing employee denigrate the statements that the NTSB make and interpret them in a way favourable to your employer.

Obviously you don't read anything carefully - the statement was issued by the FAA, not the NTSB. Your remarks are not only derogatory, they're irrelevant.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 46):
Does this not bother anybody else?

No. Feel free to put forward your own interpretation - but make sure you use the relevant technical definitions in the FARs, not your own or Wiki's.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
mcdu
Posts: 1657
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:50 pm

Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 58):

   well said
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14735
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:59 pm

Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 58):
No airline, authority or pilot union will accept to fly that design (just let the failing batteries burn out inside its so safe containment box).

. . . and yet, that's exactly how the aircraft was certified. Are you suggesting it should not have been certified with Lithium ion batteries aboard? Certainly, few people believed that during the certification process.

The issue today is the frequency of battery failures, not that they happen. Battery failures were anticipated and designed for.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
liquidair
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 2:01 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:02 pm

Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 58):

seconded!
trying to stop my gaseous viscosity go liquid
 
alfablue
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:16 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:21 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 61):

And now those same people (who conveniently provided all the data that this technology is safe to the certifying body) have to deal with the fact that its not as safe as thought. After all the "certified" jet isn't flying at the moment is it?

I think either my understanding of English is really bad or I lack the common sense as others apparently do. The container is not the problem. That's just another layer of safety but the batteries are not supposed to light up in the first place. It's like the engine nacelle. The engine is not supposed to fail in a fashion that parts fly around but in the event it happens it should be contained. It's like saying we built lighter engines which explode more often but it does not matter cause we built a container around....

Do you get the concept that in modern aviation I don't want things on board over the ocean that light up for an unknown reason and right next to all vital systems and I have no tools to prevent that or mitigate the effects except praying that the engineers didn't built in a design flaw into the container (as we saw with RR and the A380). The container is a special provision but as far as I read the battery certification condition, it's not supposed to burn in the first place. The container is not relevant here - it's the fact that you have a fire on board you can not control - contained or not - it does not matter!

The difference the container made is that we see now images of a 787 with slides deployed instead of video footage out of o helicopter of an ANA tail fin off the west cost of Japan.

AlfaBlue

[Edited 2013-01-22 06:27:00]
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14735
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:29 pm

Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 63):
That's just another layer of safety but the batteries are not supposed to light up in the first place.

That's incorrect. Lithium ion batteries, like all batteries, fail from time to time. Lithium ion batteries fail in a more spectacular way than other batteries. If you have a way to ensure no thermal runaway ever, I'd sure like to hear it. Of course, if you had such a method, you'd be so busy and so rich that you would not be posting here.

Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 63):
Do you get the concept that in modern aviation I don't want things on board over the ocean that light up for an unknown reason and right next to all vital systems and I have no tools to prevent that or mitigate the effects except praying that the engineers didn't built in a design flaw into the container (as we saw with RR and the A380).

Then don't fly any aircraft with lithium ion batteries on board. Thermal runaway can--and does--happen.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
alfablue
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:16 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:39 pm

I think we have safer battery tech available and saving some weight and improving economics is no acceptable reason to endanger lives. In that case I would take back the special provisions and Airbus has to find another power source for their emergency lightning system, redesign the A350 and Boeing does the same for their Dreamliner.

Yes - based on recent evidence I would suggest that the certifying bodies DO NOT allow the use of lithium batteries in commercial aircraft. Regulations can be changed - sorry for Boeing if they built their product around that technology - still does not want to make me fly one neither as driver nor as pax... This technology is too dangerous and I would love to see how many pilots agree with me!

AlfaBlue

[Edited 2013-01-22 06:40:54]
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20956
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:40 pm

I'm glad we're having this debate. A hundred years ago the average life span in the US was only 47 years...

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 54):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
And we are fortunate that we have members who understand these exact technicalities in this specific field and have tried very hard to provide specific definitions so that these incidents can be correctly and accurately discussed.

Ditto that.

I further add that. I am an expert in flight test, fluid analysis, and a few other things; but not batteries, so I appreciate the education and patience of our members who do know more.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 11):
About heat: Those batteries went to full destruction on their known thermal runaway failure mode. We have no evidence telling that any other equipment suffered any heat damage. Therefore the heat can be assumed to be contained in these incidents.

   They will engineer in labs. If it was the worst case scenario (probably not, that would be the peak day temperature), then it has proven itself.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
I have heard an unconfirmed report that some 787s recently received a software update that changed the power system battery charging algorithm(s) and controls

I wouldn't be surprised. The question is how much did it reduce the chance of a runaway battery?

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 37):
Sorry, I read that somewhere and must have mis-remembered it. It obviously can't be that high... probably closer to 130,000.  

I speculate the 787s are being used at a low daily utilization rate, probably down at 13 hours/day.

50 planes * 13 hours/(day per plane)*365 days/year=237,250 hours/year. Considering how recent many of the deliveries have been, I would think 130,000 hours would be a reasonable number.

Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 58):
Some of the posts on this topic seem to try to downplay this as a no-event

It isn't a non-event, but it is an event that can be engineered to a far lower level of probability. For example, gasoline is an extremely dangerous substance. Many cars in the past would just catch fire due to defects. But we haven't gotten rid of gasoline in our cars, we instead made them more leak proof and put a pad in the gas tank so that there is far less risk of detonation in a crash. These batteries have containment that has done its job not only in the lab but in the real world. Now to re-engineer so there is less chance of a run away battery.

But it wasn't just the batteries on the 787. The two aircraft had fuel system issues that created spills. That must be corrected to.

I personally think the idea of individual cell monitoring must be considered (voltage per cell?). But I am not a battery expert and I will let them make the suggestions.

Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 58):
This aircraft has a deeply flawed electrical system and the recent incidents just made that very clear to very many people. Only very naive people will think that there is an easy fix and that the 787 will do long ocean crossings again in a few days.

Were hydraulic systems deeply flawed after the DC-10?    This isn't a simple solution, but all military aircraft are heading to electrical aircraft as they are *safer* in the long run. Skydrol is a nasty chemical. The joke is there will always be a career for safety engineers as long as there is Skydrol (hydraulic fluid) in aircraft. It is taking some debugging. All high energy subsystems need to be treated with respect. The issue for electrical systems is for an aircraft of this size, there was no predecessor. But most of the electrical system is working as intended.

Here is the neat thing. A hydraulic aircraft that has a stability issue is stuck with it (e.g., the challenge of the 727). All fly by wire aircraft are 'retuned' about every 3 to 5 years and the 787 will be far more tunable than the 777 or A320/A330. That means constant safety and efficiency improvements throughout the first 20 years of the aircraft service (after then, there are few, if any, changes).

A decade from now a 787 will be a safer aircraft than the 767 or A330 to fly on. Those will still be fine aircraft, but they simply do not have the computers no electrical systems to be refined to the degree the 787 will be.

The batteries will have to be addressed. With Lithium batteries, a simple change in the charging voltage profile can reduce the risk of a battery fire by a ten thousand (or more).

Think of this like composite fan blades. They were pulled out of the 757 due to safety issues but are now standard with millions of flight hours upon them. Some technology needs to be refined. Luckily, batteries are an easy technology to fix as why they fail are known. e.g., one cell over-charges and 'runs away' which can be diagnosed by voltage across that one cell. While that might not be the end answer, there is more than one way to dramatically reduce the risk without a battery change.

Now I'm of the opinion the batteries will have to be changed as a PR move... I would rather they aren't as the Lithium batteries are an excellent technical solution.

As to living with fire... Ummm... LROPS contains a cargo fire. As long as the probability of the fire decreases to a value low enough, that is ok. You do realize the requirement is so strict that the most dangerous part of your flight is as a pedestrian getting to and from the flight?

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 61):
The issue today is the frequency of battery failures, not that they happen. Battery failures were anticipated and designed for.

And that sums it up... Get the frequency down and then the plane will fly again.


Lightsaber
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.
 
liquidair
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 2:01 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:43 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 64):

How many mass produced passenger jets are there with lith-ion batteries? Which were designed to have failing thermal runaway fires?

Forest, trees anyone?

It's not a question of designing in the containment- there shouldn't be this issue in the first place. As I said before, fires are just a no no in aviation- things can go wrong and end up outside of the parameters envisioned...And that's when we get deaths.

It's a gung ho attitude to say it's ok... An attitude that sooner or later will be defined and smeared with the blood of civilians.

RR had to fix their problems with the engines on the A380- Boeing must accept they have a problem and fix it- and it may be the core technology that needs to go.
trying to stop my gaseous viscosity go liquid
 
tarheelwings
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:44 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:43 pm

Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 58):
Thanx for reading this post and I assure you that some of you will land on my respected users list while other won't. As a pilot and aviation enthusiast I will avoid flying the Dreamliner if the aircraft is cleared to fly with a simple software fix (as some believe or hope for) as I don't want to be on-board an aircraft where a fire is seen as a controllable, manageable and safe condition (honestly I couldn't care less if the containment worked so far - who tells me it will do the same job next time a battery lights up). This whole discussion about whether the grounding was justified or if the aircraft is safe really irritates me. Burning batteries, emergencies, a design review followed by a grounding and some still think this has nothing whatsoever to do with safety?

Interesting post, thanks.

I for one can weigh your input against that of a.netters who participated in the certification/flight testing of the Dreamliner.....members who have unequivocally stated that they will have no issue with flying on it once it is cleared to fly again.........members who in my opinion have established some pretty solid credibility.

Based on their input, I'll have no issue flying on the 787 when it is cleared.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14735
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:48 pm

Quoting liquidair (Reply 68):
It's not a question of designing in the containment- there shouldn't be this issue in the first place.

You are suggesting that the 787 should never have been certified.

Where were you (and those with that viewpoint) during the certification process? Where have you been during the 350 certification process? Why aren't you calling for the 380 to be grounded? If you oppose any use of lithium ion batteries, all of those questions need to be asked.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:50 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 64):
Thermal runaway can--and does--happen.

Why? I bet you can't tell a single reason why it can happen.

The condition for it to happen are known and it is possible to build the system that it can't happen. The 787 was required to treat the lipos in a way that it doesn't happen. And still it did happen onboard the 787 far too frequent.

So the the design has a flaw and fails to live up to the certified standards.

What went wrong? A valid question IMO. So people like AlfaBlue are at a very safe position and those who downplay the grounding are coming more and more across as fools who are blinded by fanboyism. I fear the grounding as wake up call was not yet loud enough for many commentors here. And the final conclusion will be very dissapointing to them.

You know, we often remember SR111. But do you know that 3 of 4 lost Swissair jets in their whole history have been lost due to onboard fire?

The idea that the 787 has an onboard fireplace, where you could have safely a barbecue party inflight, is almost absurd.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
liquidair
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 2:01 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:52 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 70):

your questions are valid- and I would cautiously respond by saying that the certification process isn't flawless.
trying to stop my gaseous viscosity go liquid
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14735
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:52 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 71):
The condition for it to happen are known and it is possible to build the system that it can't happen.

How?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 71):
So people like AlfaBlue are at a very safe position and those who downplay the grounding are coming more and more across as fools who are blinded by fanboyism

Is anyone still downplaying the grounding? I'm not sure anyone who has commented in this part of the thread has.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
PlaneInsomniac
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:34 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:52 pm

Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 58):
"Ladies and gentlemen this is your captain speaking - Sorry to interrupt your lunch but we have some indications that we might have a battery fire on board.

  

Wow, thank you so very much.

Some much needed perspective on a very serious topic!

The amount of word mincing, pseudo-legal babble, and over- and re-interpretation of published information for the sole purpose of downplaying the problem in this forum has reached unimaginable proportions. It will not stop the (increasingly condescending) posts by the self-proclaimed "experts", but I for one am glad somebody took the time to formulate what needed to be said!
Am I cured? Slept 5 hours on last long-haul flight...
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14735
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:01 pm

Quoting liquidair (Reply 72):
I would cautiously respond by saying that the certification process isn't flawless.

I agree, and it's important to remember that the use of lithium ion batteries in the 380 emergency lighting system is quite a bit different from what is done in the 787 or, as I understand it, what is planned for the 350. My understanding of the 350 electrical architecture isn't so good, so I'd love for someone more in the know on that to correct me if I am wrong on my discussion of the 350, but I believe the plan is for 4 lithium ion batteries with 4 different functions, including backup power and APU start functions similar to how the batteries are used in the 787.

The fact that Boeing and Airbus independently went in the lithium ion direction for similar functions tells us, I think, that we really need to figure out a way to make the risk of thermal runaway and the risk associated with thermal runaway when it does happen suitably low that lithium batteries can be used in the applications for which Boeing and Airbus want to use it in the 787 and 350.

As pointed out above, the design condition is not "no thermal runaway." It is twofold:

1) Sufficiently low risk of thermal runaway
2) Sufficient design (including location, containment, venting, etc.) that when thermal runaway happens, it does not pose a risk to safety of flight. Obviously, the higher the risk of thermal runaway, the more design elements are necessary.

A lot of folks who are coming at this from the pilot side rather than the design side forget that components fail, and engineers plan for them to fail. If the frequency and the effects of those failures are managed, failure is okay.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
rcair1
Posts: 1147
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:07 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 46):
I actually find it a bit concerning that you take it upon yourself to reinterpret the words of the NTSB, its a bit patronising don't you think?

You are also interpreting the comments by the FAA (not NTSB) as are most of the people here- me included. A useful response might be to provide a different interpretation, not to patronize members who are struggling with trying to inform and educate.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 46):
On one hand you say that the NTSB are the only agency authorised to issue statements then on the other you as a Boeing employee denigrate the statements that the NTSB make and interpret them in a way favourable to your employer.

Using your standard - we would make sure that no experts - me included - would comments. I, for one, am thankful that we have responsible members from Boeing and Airbus who will contribute their knowledge and expertise.

Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 58):
This batteries catch fire for unknown reasons at unknown intervals and me as a pilot, I have no means to put it out but let it just burn out and hope it does not damage anything vital while it burns for one hour!

I understand your point - but I have to take a bit of an issue with some of your wording. On one hand, "hope" implies it is a chance event - it implies that you are relying on that 'chance' - that you are in an uncharted territory that is not anticipated or designed for. "I hope I win the lottery." In the case you are discussing it is more a matter of trust. I 'trust' that the people who designed this system did it right.

As a passenger on one of your aircraft - I don't "hope" you know what you are doing, I "trust" that you know what you are doing.

In fact, the aircraft you fly are FULL of systems you must "trust" in normal operations and in an emergency - and you get on them every day. To be clear, you also trust in the certification the FAA or other regulatory agencies apply

The point of the FAA grounding and investigation is designed to determine if that "trust" is warranted in this case. There are enough concerns that the FAA decided to check again.

Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 58):
Regulations change and demand that nacelles have to contain those catastrophic events and it becomes part of the certification process including tests where engines are purposely destroyed to prove the containment works.

This is not true. No one expects or 'trusts' that the nacelles on jet a/c will contain a fan disk failure or failure of a major rotating component. They should contain a blade off or similar event. The method used to 'contain' a fan or turbine disk is to assure they are designed to not fail and inspect/maintain them. In UA232 - the NTSB concluded that the crack in the fan disk should have been detected.

There were no design changes to the DC-10 or any other a/c nacelles due to UA232 or the A380 Nancy Bird events. In the DC-10 hydraulic fuses (valves) were added to prevent leakage of all hydraulic fluid. There were no design changes in the A380 at all that I'm aware of - there was a change and inspection to the engine manufacturing process. (Perhaps Airbus made some changes in the s/w or systems - but they were not mandated.)

BTW - the A380 was not grounded after the Nancy Bird event - Qantas did ground theirs, but the fleet was not grounded. The A380 was grounded after the wing cracks were found because EASA did not 'trust' that the systems were robust enough to handle the cracking and wanted verification.

Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 58):
I think some of you on this forum think that with a burning battery in a container I just roll to the gate, disembark normally and dispatch again one hour after an emergency landing caused by an on-board fire

I've seen nobody (credible) claim that. In fact, the people you seem to be denigrating have said just the opposite. They say the emergency landing and evacuation of the ANA 787 was appropriate and warranted.

Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 58):
but I have the feeling that it will turn out as the exact opposites - the bets are on I would say.

Which is why, as engineers, we don't design things based upon 'feelings'. We design them based on facts. Of course - 'feelings' based upon experience will guide our actions - but those actions will generate data. When I was in charge of quality control in the development lab and I saw occasional, unanticipated failures, sometimes I would have a 'feeling' that something was there. That informed my actions to devise and execute further tests to determine if I had a failure.
Other times I'd have the feeling that I had found the problem - or that it was an event that happened due to early production/prototype. But guess what - that feeling still drove actions - to verify the issue.
To be clear - I was designing consumer electronics (digital camera and scanners) so most of the issues I looked at were not life threatening (though there were aspects that were).

Sometimes the "feeling" is strong enough that you will go to the mat to find the issue. Rarely is 'feeling' that you've fixed it enough - you need data.

In both the space shuttle failures, many engineers had feelings that something was wrong. Unfortunately, they did not have the data to back it up and had no mechanism to gather that data. The data that existed and that shuttle managers relied on was not valid data - it was operational bias (we've gotten away with it every other time - so we will be okay). In fact, those "feelings" the engineers had were right. Challenger should not have launched at that temperature. Columbia should have been inspected (inspection by ground based optics was ordered, then canceled). To be clear - we don't know if they could have gotten Columbia down with the holes in the wings. There is some thought that they could have modified the entry profile to protect the left wing - but we are not sure.
rcair1
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27367
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:28 pm

Quoting smolt (Reply 51):
I am impressed that people tend to pay much more attention ONLY to the battery itself, than WHAT made the battery malfunction. I am very interested in if charging system worked fine.

They're focusing on the batteries because the 787 had over 100,000 hours of in-service flight and thousands of hours of test flights with no reports of the batteries catching fire or leaking electrolyte. If the charging system was flawed from the start, statistically we should have seen more incidents.

It may be that the charging system was recently changed (via a software update) and that change may be a cause or the root cause of these problems. So I would expect that if the charging system has been changed since EIS, it will be investigated, as well.



Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 58):
A good example of containment and certification and unpredictability are engine nacelles as previous mentioned in a very well written post. We have two uncontained engine failures which claim lives (A DC9 engine failure where parts of the exploding engine travel trough the fuselage and kill people and the famous UA DC10 accident where parts of the failing engine kill hydraulics and make the plane difficult to handle). Regulations change and demand that nacelles have to contain those catastrophic events and it becomes part of the certification process including tests where engines are purposely destroyed to prove the containment works.

And then a Trent 900 suffered an uncontained failure (QF32) and severely damaged the wing. Some even claim that if this level of damage had happened on a "less-robust" wing, it might have failed, resulting in the loss of the airframe.

The alarmist in me would say "The A380 is unsafe! It must be grounded! I'll never fly on one again!"

The cynic in me would say "maybe the third time is the charm" and they'll get it right, now.

The realist in me understands that nobody is perfect and therefore neither can anything be that is designed by people. But as James T. Kirk noted - "We learn by doing" and just as nacelle and engine safety were improved after the DC-9 incident, and then again after UA232, so they will be improved yet again after QF32. And chances are we'll have another uncontained engine failure (hopefully with no injuries and fatalities) and we'll make them even safer once we understand why that happened. In the meantime, I keep flying the A380.

[Edited 2013-01-22 07:43:15]
 
PHX787
Posts: 7892
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:43 pm

http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...vestigate-boeing-787-battery-maker

The transport ministry is launching an investigation now. This may keep dreamliners grounded for months.

Quoting smolt (Reply 51):

Thanks for the update
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
alfablue
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:16 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:49 pm

Why did the Boeing management flip upon the news of the grounding? Because they know about the flaws and the flawed elec. system and now the whole world knows and vividly discusses it too. So in the next boardroom meeting they will be discussing following two options. Quick fix or re-design?

The quick fix (if allowed by authorities) bears the risk that if any other problem with the electric system or batteries occurs the credibility of Boeing and the FAA are trashed. The plane will be grounded a second time pure to public pressure and the FAA has to finally mandate a design change while still defending why they didn't during the first grounding. This would probably kill Boeing.

The re-design would be the safer bet in the sense that people will get confidence in Boeing again as a safety minded company but it will be very expensive and keep the bird on the ground for some time to come. This will not immediately kill Boeing but nevertheless they loose a hell of a lot.

The Dreamliner in many aspects is based on the sonic cruiser concept and dates back to 2001. There were no burned down buildings or laptops yet. Those problems surfaced after the decision for lithium was already taken. As it turns out it wasn't the best one.

Once upon a time Douglas planes were roaming around the earth like dinosaurs millions of years ago and we know what happened to both.

Concerning whether the grounding is too conservative or whether some people are too much on the safe side (me included) it does not really matter - this ongoing discussion has made it very very hard if not impossible to just let the aircraft fly again. I wouldn't take that risk. I give you another reason and that's the pilots (me included). We love safety, we are sent twice per year in the simulator, CRM training, fire fighting and so forth... We are a group who resisted flying with only two guys in front and many pilot unions prevented many airlines from buying twins to cross oceans for a long time. I mean we still discuss whether the Airbus flight envelope protection takes away "final responsibility". I promise you that most pilot unions will voice very strong doubts - it's just fact! Those few management people or engineers who made those decisions will most likely not be on that burning aircraft (contained battery fire) in the middle of the Pacific. Thousands of pilots will be and you can call us conservative or frightened or whatever you like - we still don't like to fly around fires - full stop!

AlfaBlue
 
holzmann
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:43 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:54 pm

I so called this!

I posted days ago that Boeing should turn to TELSA, now Elon Musk is tweeting:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/292321606376779776

"Maybe already under control, but Tesla & SpaceX are happy to help with the 787 lithium ion batteries."
DISCLAIMER: Airliners.net is an AIRBUS forum. Boeing Commercial Airplanes, if it has considered doing so in the past, should in no way consider supporting this website.
 
humanitarian
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:00 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:08 pm

They are saying the ANA battery was overcharged.

Quote:
Japanese safety investigators have determined an All Nippon Airways 787 lithium-ion main battery malfunctioned after being over-charged, forcing the widebody to make an emergency landing on 16 January and triggering a global grounding of the fleet still in effect.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...na-787-battery-malfunction-381268/
 
tarheelwings
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:44 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:12 pm

Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 79):
Why did the Boeing management flip upon the news of the grounding? Because they know about the flaws and the flawed elec. system and now the whole world knows and vividly discusses it too. So in the next boardroom meeting they will be discussing following two options. Quick fix or re-design?

And the true agenda comes out: Boeing management knew about the problems but chose to ignore them and allowed a dangerous plane to fly......since this is criminally negligent, I imagine the Justice Department will be coming after them next  
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:32 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 71):
those who downplay the grounding are coming more and more across as fools who are blinded by fanboyism.

Who exactly is downplaying these incidents? Please provide some direct quotes.

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 74):
The amount of word mincing, pseudo-legal babble, and over- and re-interpretation of published information for the sole purpose of downplaying the problem in this forum has reached unimaginable proportions

Yes, there has been a discussion over the meaning of certain words but you are mistaken in your belief that they are for the 'purpose of downplaying the problem', as you put it. The purpose of clarifying legal or technical meanings is not to downplay, but it is to provide clarity as to the meaning of certain terms that have been used by experts in the field and regulatory authorities alike. In any field, precision is important, and the practice of using precise words which carry very specific meanings is to convey that specific meaning and nothing else, allowing as small a margin as possible for errors and misinterpretations.

It would seem to me that some posters are over-simplifying the matter and dismissing the input from very knowledgeable people in the industry as 'downplaying' the incident.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3582
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:32 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 70):
You are suggesting that the 787 should never have been certified.

Depending on the problem that's eventually found, there's a good chance it shouldn't have been. It's grounded now, and not for any problem related to wear and tear, but to either a design or manufacturing defect. If it's a manufacturing defect, then it's not the design's fault. If it's a design defect, then it obviously is the design's fault.

Lots of planes end up being certified with foreseeable design defects; the 787 wouldn't be alone in this regard. It's not as if the FAA didn't have concerns about these batteries. One question is whether their concerns went far enough. This wouldn't be on Boeing, but on the FAA. Lithium ion batteries on passenger airliners are not something the FAA has a lot of experience with either.

Quote:
Where were you (and those with that viewpoint) during the certification process?

How is that question relevant? Not many of us work for the FAA. We don't have access to their data before a plane is certified - heck, we don't have access to it *now*, and everyone in this thread is still just speculating. As the flying public, we have to trust that our government agencies are doing their jobs properly to begin with, not a year after the fact.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
rcair1
Posts: 1147
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:35 pm

Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 79):
Because they know about the flaws and the flawed elec. system and now the whole world knows and vividly discusses it too. So in the next boardroom meeting they will be discussing following two options.

Hmmm - maybe I'll withdraw that trust I mentioned in my previous post? What airline do you fly for?

Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 79):
Once upon a time Douglas planes were roaming around the earth like dinosaurs millions of years ago and we know what happened to both.

Are you saying Douglas is gone because they were unsafe? What about Lockheed - they are gone as a commercial a/c provider - was it because they were unsafe?

Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 79):
many pilot unions prevented many airlines from buying twins to cross oceans for a long time.

Would you fly a twin across the ocean? Sounds like no.
Can you point to any instance where a twin went down or almost did where a tri-jet or quad would not have? Let's see - gimle glider - nope that was fuel starvation. So was airbus that set down in the pacific. The 747 that flew into ashes - wait - that was a quad. Maybe the L1011 into Florida on one engine - after poor maintenance. However, that poor maintenance impacted all 3 engines and would have impacted 4. Had they not been close - and had they not shut down #2 early - they would not have made it.

Are you saying that twins across the ocean ore unsafe?

I think this is pure trolling.

Quoting tarheelwings (Reply 82):
And the true agenda comes out: Boeing management knew about the problems but chose to ignore them and allowed a dangerous plane to fly......since this is criminally negligent, I imagine the Justice Department will be coming after them next

I hope you are kidding... Or do you really think the Boeing BOD colluded to put an unsafe a/c in the air and fooled the FAA - or is the FAA part of the conspiracy? How about Thales and Yuasa - they must have been part of the collusion - surely they would have known about the "known failure."

I'm afraid I'm starting to despair at this thread .....
rcair1
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14735
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:41 pm

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 85):
How is that question relevant? Not many of us work for the FAA.

The fact that the 787 was going to use lithium ion technology wasn't exactly a state secret, just as it's public knowledge that the 350 is going to even though the 350 is years from EIS.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
alfablue
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:16 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:42 pm

I am not an engineer neither a law maker, I am just a dumb user (pilot and pax) who has seen too many scary youTube videos of exploding batteries. Some of you have convinced me now. Why should I doubt those brilliant engineers and corporate executives who have never lied. We should all fight for the right to let Boeing and other manufactures use us as live lab rats to prove or disprove a new technology. Lets start a common effort to get the 787 as quickly as possible back into the air (even though we have other technologies at our disposal). If we are lucky nothing happens and we soon see thousands of 787s in the skies and around airports. If we are not lucky we have a bankrupt Boeing, an outraged public and a few more deaths for the statistics, which it all comes down to, right? - by the way 2012 was quite safe! (That was sarcasm - just in case somebody has doubts) - what can possibly happen to a DreamLiner in the middle over an ocean with a contained fire? The way to the airport is the dangerous part, isn't it?

AlfaBlue
 
tarheelwings
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:44 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:47 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 86):
I hope you are kidding... Or do you really think the Boeing BOD colluded to put an unsafe a/c in the air and fooled the FAA - or is the FAA part of the conspiracy? How about Thales and Yuasa - they must have been part of the collusion - surely they would have known about the "known failure."

I'm afraid I'm starting to despair at this thread .....

Of course I'm kidding, my post was meant to be sarcastic, please note the  

Like you, I get frustrated at some of the "opinions" expressed by some a.netters.
 
alfablue
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:16 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:56 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 86):
Are you saying Douglas is gone because they were unsafe? What about Lockheed - they are gone as a commercial a/c provider - was it because they were unsafe?

No - After all I flew one of their products and loved it. But any company can go bust, self inflicted, bad management or by bad luck like a comet whipping the beloved dino's out. (maybe Boeings problems is just a phase of bad luck)

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 86):
Would you fly a twin across the ocean? Sounds like no.

I did and I never said I wouldn't. I said that often you have groups of pilots or unions who don't like certain new provisions. Like ETOPS or two pilot flight decks. This is history and not my personal preference.

AlfaBlue
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14735
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:01 pm

Quoting alfablue (Reply 90):
I said that often you have groups of pilots or unions who don't like certain new provisions. Like ETOPS or two pilot flight decks.

. . . or like lithium ion batteries, no?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:04 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 86):
I'm afraid I'm starting to despair at this thread .....

Indeed! It's starting to resemble the early AF447 threads where some of the same people posting here claimed:

- that AF and BEA were colluding to not recover the recorders in order to cover up the causes
- that EASA and AF did not do anything about Thales pitots that were icing "all the time"
- that BEA were covering up key evidence
- that AF procedures prevented the pilots from diverting around dangerous weather
- that FBW is inherently dangerous
- that Airbus flight control computers had serious design flaws
- etc, etc, etc

The end result was that many of the knowledgeable posters (Tom, Pihero, Mandala499) just bailed out and left the threads to the conspiracy theorists and armchair investigative experts who had once done a spiral dive recovery in a C150.

None of these posters has since acknowledged their ignorance.

[Edited 2013-01-22 09:10:17]
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9867
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:09 pm

I think it is too early to call for actions, when the cause of the problem is still unknown.
 
rcair1
Posts: 1147
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:15 pm

Per mods - reposting because this was at the end of the locked thread part 3.
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 261):
My point was more about how safety isn't an absolute, not that safety improvements shouldn't continue. I've read reports where the addition of so many safety mechanisms in cars has led to a sense of invulnerability in some, where they feel they can drive more recklessly, since they won't get hurt or killed.

I agree 100%. Also - some of this safety for occupants comes at the cost of safety for responders. Used to be that skinning a roof off a car straight forward, slice the A, B and C pillars - lift it off. Now we have to worry about cutting into all sorts of nasty stuff in those pillars.

Even airbags - which are wonderful - are a hazard to the responders. The silly things can go off at the most inopportune time after the crash.

Hybrids with RFID keys - another example. Used to be you rolled up to a car and it was not running - you did not worry about it "taking off". Now days, with a hybrid, that person in the seat can accidentally push on the accelerator (or the FF does), and off it goes. Ad the RFID based key in that persons pocket, no ability to disconnect the battery - you can have a situation where stabilizing the car can be non-obvious.

And - no- I'm not arguing against any of these improvements. They are wonderful. I'd much rather, as an emergency responder, have to deal with the situation with an uninjured passenger than with an severely injured one.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 261):
Survivability has improved significantly more quickly than the accident rate...we're safer, but not smarter.

Some would argue we may be safer - but we are dumber....

Quoting abba (Reply 263):
If everything worked as predicted and designed then the FAA should rather be happy having an in operation proof of the assumptions and design rather than grounding the fleet. Or?

That may end up being the case - but I doubt it. Generally "some" recommendation will come out whenever any government agency is involved even if there isn't a significant finding. And - to be fair - it will probably improve safety.
The biggest concern, I think, is 2 events in a short period in a system that should fail rarely and a containment system that worked, perhaps, differently than expected.
It is completely understandable to ask the questions - why did we have to rare events, and did that containment system really work? It seems reasonable people can disagree on the second, or at least be concerned enough to want to look deeper. It is also reasonable for the FAA to say - hang on while we do that.

Time will tell what was the prudent case.
rcair1
 
bellancacf
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:51 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:15 pm

I've wondered from the start of these threads why the Li cells were in proximity to each other. Post #20 at the following link has this to say:

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/505695-787-batteries-chargers.html

Quote: "One other point he mentioned: in their automotive application, Tesla uses these very small cells in very large numbers--but they are located in a sort of honeycomb structure. One must either design hoping never to have failure (in reality, extremely improbable), or design in a way so that failure causes acceptable harm. It appears Tesla decided that could not count on their lithium cells never failing, so took good care (it involves both physical and electrical considerations) to assure that the likely failure mode of a single cell would not cascade to adjacent cells. The cells they use are small enough that the energy release from a single one should not endanger crew or vehicle."

It seems that there _is_ a way to pack in the cells so that there's less chance of CON-flagration. Missed opportunities, IMVHO.
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 785
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:21 pm

Quoting AlfaBlue (Reply 63):
Do you get the concept that in modern aviation I don't want things on board over the ocean that light up for an unknown reason

Is that not the point of the grounding. It wasn't supposed to happen, there are design measure in place incase it does happen. It has happened. It is as yet unknown why it happened. So the FAA and boeing and many other people are investigating as to why it has happened. Once that reason is found and a fix in place, the grounding will be lifted. Do you not get that concept? Am I over simplyfying things?

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 74):
Some much needed perspective on a very serious topic!

Alfablue seems to be at the complete opposite of quite alot of respected & knowledgeable posters on this forum. I'm not a experienced airline desingner/maintainer/ flyer, but I can learn, and I've learnt alot from some posters on this forum. If Alfablue is a pilot as he says, he should surely know that an engine nacelle dosen't have to contain a disc to be certified, it has to contain a fan blade. The engine on the QF flight had no chance of containg a disc. To design it to do so, would mean and engine so heavy, no plane would ever get off the ground. Credibility destryed by one false statement whilst trying to discredit others.

So whilst Alfablue may have some perspective, it dosen't seem to fit with many experts on this forum or the perspective I would expect him to have as a pilot.

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 74):
The amount of word mincing, pseudo-legal babble, and over- and re-interpretation of published information for the sole purpose of downplaying the problem in this forum has reached unimaginable proportions
Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 74):
It will not stop the (increasingly condescending) posts by the self-proclaimed "experts", but I for one am glad somebody took the time to formulate what needed to be said!

As has the condeming of the knowledgable posters on this forum reached unimaginable proportions. I hope said posters do not get fed up with it, I for one appreciate what I can learn from them. But my post will not stop the selfproclaimed post police from bashing people just because they don't agree with what they are posting. It reminds me of the heady days of the A380 bashing.   
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27367
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:30 pm

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 95):
It seems that there _is_ a way to pack in the cells so that there's less chance of CON-flagration. Missed opportunities, IMVHO.

I would not be surprised if Tesla designed their battery packs the way they did due to the necessity of compliance with regulations concerning an automobile crash and the forces such a crash would impose on the packs.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:35 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 66):
I personally think the idea of individual cell monitoring must be considered (voltage per cell?). But I am not a battery expert and I will let them make the suggestions.

I bet 100% that it has already a balancer. It must have. If not (note: this is a possibility that impossibly can be), I would go as far and call Boeing's management and engineering as high-grade criminals (note again: the "would" phrase and the nearly impossible if-condition)....

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 83):
Are you claiming thermal runaway is not a problem with Lithium Ion batteries?

No.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 84):
Who exactly is downplaying these incidents? Please provide some direct quotes.

It will not be fruitful to explain that to somebody who has not noticed it right away. You know, just asking this question tastes like "hey, what's the problem?".
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
bellancacf
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:51 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:37 pm

to Stitch at 95: A two-fer, then? Much-reduced chance of conflagration in use, and lessened chance of "catastrophe" in a crash. Sounds like good design.
 
alfablue
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:16 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:42 pm

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 96):
Alfablue seems to be at the complete opposite of quite alot of respected & knowledgeable posters on this forum. I'm not a experienced airline desingner/maintainer/ flyer, but I can learn, and I've learnt alot from some posters on this forum. If Alfablue is a pilot as he says, he should surely know that an engine nacelle dosen't have to contain a disc to be certified, it has to contain a fan blade. The engine on the QF flight had no chance of containg a disc. To design it to do so, would mean and engine so heavy, no plane would ever get off the ground. Credibility destryed by one false statement whilst trying to discredit others.


- I have learned a lot here too - dont worry  

- I didn't talk about discs just debris I think nor do I know all facts by heart. Memory is a bad tool for pilots anyways (manuals and opinions change - sometimes over night or why do we practice stalls again in the Airbus Sim since AF447). I am sure you can find more incorrect phrased sentences if you dissect my previous posts (have fun with that). I used the nacelle sample because its close enough as an example to what the containment is supposed to do with the battery.

- I don't try do discredit nobody here - really - why should I?

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 96):
So whilst Alfablue may have some perspective, it dosen't seem to fit with many experts on this forum or the perspective I would expect him to have as a pilot.

- what perspective would you like me to have as a pilot? An engineer is the one who studies the principles of calculating risks, thinking of failure cases and so forth. My job as a pilot I thought was to NOT TAKE RISKS. Please correct me if I am wrong but have all the CRM manuals be rewritten? I am not paid to take chances, listen to my butt feelings and so forth. I am paid to follow manuals, follow SOP's and give my best under unforeseen circumstances. I am the one tho greet you on board and say that this is the best and safest airplane and Sorry buddy - Boeing is doing a hell of a bad job convincing me. So I ask you - what pilot would you like me to be?

I mean if a battery would have caught fire on a Triple Seven I would have said bad luck and lets move on - love the T7 as pax. But the DreamLiner is barely flying around and we have two fires within 10 days of each other in the E&E compartment and I am supposed to trust flying in this bird over the pacific and listen too engineers - maybe I really got my job wrong! Or even what minimizing risk means.

AlfaBlue

[Edited 2013-01-22 09:51:52]
 
rcair1
Posts: 1147
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787 Part 4

Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:44 pm

Quoting tarheelwings (Reply 89):
Of course I'm kidding, my post was meant to be sarcastic, please note the

Thanks - I thought so! Part of the point of my post was to point out to others the absurdity here.
And with this string - you can't be sure about sarcasm! I've seen more off the wall propositions posted as serious!

Quoting alfablue (Reply 90):
No - After all I flew one of their products and loved it.

Which one - Lockheed or Douglas (or MD?)
Personally - I've never flown either a Lockheed or a Douglas (or an MD). I've flown on all of the (and I have flown a Boeing - Stearman).
Interestingly - as I've flown on a different manf aircraft - I've developed a strong personal connection with certain models. The Lockheed L-1011 - I loved it. Just something about it. Similiarly, the 727 - a plane I connected with. De Havilland Beaver (which I both flew and flew in). Something about that snarling radial in the front and the honest controls/response. Others - the 747 - something that has always been majestic to me. The Convair 580 - loved it. Strangely, I've never 'connected' with a MD or Douglas a/c that way - perhaps if I had flown in the classics like a DC-3. I 'like' the 757 and 777, but not as connected as the others. I find the 737, 767, A320, A330, A340, all the RJ's and EJ's are 'good, competent' aircraft - like a 'average car'. Fine solid transportation - but no personal connection there.
I've never flown the 380 or 787 - so I have had not chance to experience the. I will say the 787 is more compelling to me than the 380 - but it is a matter of aesthetics at this point - not experience. Since I don't travel internationally like I once did - they are both somewhat unlikely. I considered buying a flight on the 787 between Denver and Houston - but don't have the disposable income - well I do - but I choose to dispose of it other places.

Quoting alfablue (Reply 90):
But any company can go bust, self inflicted, bad management or by bad luck like a comet whipping the beloved dino's out.

Yes - I worked for HP for 24 years before being laid off - due mostly to bad management at multiple levels. They exited the business I was in - a decision I thought was not smart and has proven to be exactly that. It is unclear if HP will survive to me (and unlike Boeing - I do own HP stock).

Quoting alfablue (Reply 90):
(maybe Boeings problems is just a phase of bad luck

Not much of a fan of "luck." Rarely is it luck. Usually it is causal. I see this in emergency response all the time.

Quoting alfablue (Reply 90):
I did and I never said I wouldn't. I said that often you have groups of pilots or unions who don't like certain new provisions. Like ETOPS or two pilot flight decks.

Thanks for the clarification. When you associate yourself with a group/statement that strongly, it is easy to assume you agree/support the position.
rcair1

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