servantleader
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:17 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:46 pm

The FAA already has charred soot on its face in certifying what appears to be a flawed / unreliable / unsafe Li-ion battery system design -- from a purely political / CYA standpoint I simply cannot imagine a scenario where they're going to give the all clear.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:45 pm

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 50):
already has charred soot on its face in certifying what appears to be

Wonderful example of an invalid syllogism   
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
LY4XELD
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 5:14 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:09 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 46):
The Seattle Times article is not good. If government agencies and the constructor start to push the blame around, it is usually a sign that they are facing a big and costly problem with no obvious easy solution around. Sometimes it is also a sign of failing trust between the involved parties. Which can be for various reasons, but is never a good sign for finding a commonly agreed solution to the technical problem.

I think it has less to do with pushing blame around and more to do with "exposing" a system that has been in place for years, on many programs, and suddenly putting the blame on it. Commenters on that article also mention the FDA and other federal agencies do the same thing, there's not enough people, and I assume not enough budget for these agencies to do all the certification/regulation work themselves.

In the context of the 787, it seems many are taking this as an opportunity to pick apart systems that have a good track record of past success. I assume the 777 program also had FAA certifcation delegation to Boeing as well. Does EASA have soemthing similar for Airbus?
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4047
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:36 pm

Quoting LY4XELD (Reply 52):
Does EASA have soemthing similar for Airbus

Can't speak for Airbus, but EASA definately delegates such authority to the industry. The maintenance company I worked for had an EASA Part 21 approval, meaning that we were an approved Design Organisation (DOA). I was one of the RDE's (Repair Design Engineer), who were authorized to sign off non-standard repairs by validating the proposed repair against the Certification Specifications. These repairs were signed-off in-house, without being checked directly by EASA.

EASA would audit the process from time to time. During such audits they would check some of the repair designs themselves for correct justification, they would check if the correct procedures were followed etc., they would check personnel files to validate the training of the engineers etc. If they would find anything worrtingly, they would suspend the delegated authority until corrected procedures were approved and demonstarted to function reliably. Also, all previous in-house approved documents would then each be checked by EASA. Off course this could be very time consuming, so you better made sure you had the correct procedures and personell in place!

Rgds,
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
Wisdom
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:43 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:43 pm

Someone said that certifying an alternative battery would take up to a year.
This is simply not true.

Boeing can STC a system, by showing that the STC'ed system modification has no implications to other elements, be it structures or systems.

A lead-acid solution could take 2-3 months to design and certify, 2 months to start-up the production process but it can be partially overlapped with certification once certain major milestones are passed. Plus the logistics and the installations, you add another 2 weeks. In my opinion, a lead-acid alternative would be less than 5 months away if they start it today. This would however be for a minimal modification, meaning that the lead-acid battery would take up the space of the current battery, eventually with a modified monitoring system. This would reduce capacity while increasing weight, and would make the aircraft less suitable for long ETOPS flights, if any.

Ni-cad brings more complexity to both design and certification, at barely more capacity and any weight savings over comparable new generation lead acids.
A Ni-cad would be about 8 months away for retrofit.

However, the major issue is that Ni-cad's are known for going thermal from time to time, but without too major consequences except for electrolyte leakage. On Lead-acids, thermal runaway is a remote event.
If I had to choose, I would go for Lead-acid and start immediately, even if it costs a few millions that could be just wasted money.

Even if this process would cost a few millions, it's the right thing to do unless Boeing want to bet everything on one horse. If the li-ion issue is not identified soon enough, ie by April, they will be looking at huge amounts of delay compensations for the aircraft yet to be delivered, on top of the compensations for the grounded aircraft.




Is the FAA planning to give Boeing the green light for test flights, albeit over water?
If not, I suspect that there might be more to this story than just the batteries.
 
macc
Posts: 922
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:11 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:58 pm

small note on orf.at:

NTSB director Deborah Hersman is quotet today saying that the investigation is still weeks from any results. She doesnt count on results anytime soon.

http://orf.at/#/stories/2165349/


when do you think Boing would be forced to shut down or at least reduce production?
Which implications does it have for airlines, pilots and storage of existing planes?
I exchanged political frustration with sexual boredom. better spoil a girl than the world
 
Unflug
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:25 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:06 pm

Quoting macc (Reply 55):

NTSB director Deborah Hersman is quotet today saying that the investigation is still weeks from any results. She doesnt count on results anytime soon.

Same quote in English:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...ntsb-says-20130206,0,4238775.story
 
servantleader
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:17 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:07 pm

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 54):
Someone said that certifying an alternative battery would take up to a year.
This is simply not true.

Your estimates to certify a new battery system are just as valid as the one year estimate, but they are only estimates. There are too many variables at play to be definitive. However, if the 787s track record of missed targets is a valid data point, it would seem that the longer estimates are the more likely.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:08 pm

I still wonder what they're going to do about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pizFsY0yjss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC0UWIYswKI
No containment system. As of October, 2012, the FAA had logged 127 consumer electronic incidents in cabins, checked baggage and cargo. In at least 12 of them it was just dumb luck that the consequences weren't serious.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
rcair1
Posts: 1147
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:47 pm

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 45):
still a 'catastrophic system failure'.

In FAA Parlance, a catastrophic failure is

Catastrophic: Results in multiple fatalities and/or loss of the system.

Defined: Effect on aircraft occupants
FAR- Conditions which prevent continued safe flight and landing
JAR- Multiple deaths, usually with loss of aircraft

The events that have happened were not catastrophic, obviously.
The question is 'could a similar event be.' which is why the grounding.

Quoting PITingres (Reply 47):
I see that after a few days of reasonably rational discussion, the sky is falling again

Yes.

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 50):

The FAA already has charred soot on its face in certifying what appears to be a flawed / unreliable / unsafe Li-ion battery system design -- from a purely political / CYA standpoint I simply cannot imagine a scenario where they're going to give the all clear.

I'm sorry- statements of opinion are far from convincing evidence that this is the result of either incompetence or collusion. There are many cases in aviation where people working very hard to establish the safety of a system have simply missed a factor. Read "Loud and Clear" for a few examples.

Please provide data or evidence of the FAA certifying a flawed/unreliable/unsafe system - first we don't even know the system is flawed/unreliable/unsafe from a system standpoint. We know we have had 2 failures, neither of which caused significant or important damage.

Don't downplay the seriousness of the issue, but at the same time, don't draw conclusions of intentional wrong doing, or even proof of major issue.

Quoting macc (Reply 55):
NTSB director Deborah Hersman is quotet today saying that the investigation is still weeks from any results. She doesnt count on results anytime soon.

The NTSB is well known for being ultra careful and conservative - it is their job. Don't get me wrong - the NTSB is an organization that is probably one of the most highly regarded agencies that exist - and rightly so. However, if the NTSB was running transportation - we'd likely be walking - and certainly not flying. You've all see the "NTSB approved horse..." of course.
rcair1
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18672
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:12 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 59):
first we don't even know the system is flawed/unreliable/unsafe from a system standpoint. We know we have had 2 failures, neither of which caused significant or important damage.

That is important and worth repeating.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 54):
A lead-acid solution could take 2-3 months to design and certify

Maybe a little longer for acid containment.

Quoting macc (Reply 55):
NTSB director Deborah Hersman is quotet today saying that the investigation is still weeks from any results. She doesnt count on results anytime soon.

Ugh oh...

That is a week for week hit on my timeline. That is very bad news.  

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 59):
However, if the NTSB was running transportation - we'd likely be walking - and certainly not flying.

True. That is why the FAA is a 'buffer' to the NTSB.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 59):
You've all see the "NTSB approved horse..." of course.

   Those animals killed quite a few people.
Comparing fatalities associated with horse-related accidents in 1916 Chicago versus automobile accidents in 1997, he concludes that people were killed nearly seven times more often back in the good old days.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/03/29/the-horse-manure-problem/

To be blunt, horses panic. Today they are only ridden where it is safe usually by more capable riders. If everyone had to ride a horse, they would. That doesn't mean they would treat an animal correctly (including keeping it comfy with good medical and food).

Don't forget about the 15 to 30 pounds of manure a horse generates daily (more about that in the article). You need a few horses per person to sustain our standard of living...

And in the 'good old days' the NYC would have to clear 15,000 dead horses off the street per year...

More fun facts on the 'good old days'
http://books.google.com/books?id=o3o...UarmOtGl2AXR3oC4CA&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw

Fact 590 has coaches the #1 cause of death in London.   

That link puts the rate of deaths on horses at 10X today's rate (fact 591).

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
wolbo
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:09 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:47 pm

Boeing proposes an interim fix to get the 787 flying again.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...iner-battery-idUSBRE9151CN20130206
 
UA787DEN
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:59 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:13 am

 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 2254
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:40 am

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 62):

Not that it matters, but, what plane is this that's in Texas for painting and is ferrying to Washington?
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
cornutt
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:57 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:59 am

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 45):
Even if nobody dies and a car is still structurally intact when an engine runs out of oil and seizes, it is still a 'catastrophic system failure'.

By the FAA's official definition, as stated in AC 25.1309, it is not. Now, we can debate whether or not a catastrophic failure would be possible in the circumstances, and what the probability of such an event might be. Obviously, the FAA believes that that probability exceeds what is allowed for catastrophic events, and that's why they grounded the aircraft. However, by the FAA's clearly stated definition, neither of the 787 batteries to date has resulted in a catastrophic event. That much is inarguable.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26633
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:07 am

Quoting Wolbo (Reply 61):
Boeing proposes an interim fix to get the 787 flying again.
Leeham, piggybacking off the WSJ articles, notes Boeing is considering the following design changes:
● spacing the battery cells;
● adding some rigidity to prevent shifting from vibrations and interfering with electronics;
● eventually shifting to a new battery altogether;
● improved fire containment.

It appears the FAA has also approved Boeing's request to perform at least one test flight to gather information.
 
cornutt
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:57 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:18 am

That's interesting that Boeing thinks they can find out something from a test flight. Presumably if the suspected cause was purely electrical, that could be duplicated on the ground (I'm sure Boeing has a hardware-in-the-loop lab somewhere in Seattle). So the fact that they're proposing a test flight suggests that they have found something that would be difficult to duplicate well on the ground. The most obvious candidate is vibration.

I've been wondering about that the last few days anyhow. The photos that the NTSB published of the CAT scans showed that the cell shorts occurred at the tops of the cells. I wonder if those big heavy bus bars that connect the cells together are transmitting vibration to the cell poles, and doing damage to the plate piles inside the cells.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26633
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:20 am

Quoting cornutt (Reply 66):
The most obvious candidate is vibration.

I believe they're also checking to see if moisture is getting into the containment vessel / battery.
 
hmelawyer
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 6:11 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:27 am

Quoting hoMsar (Reply 63):
Not that it matters, but, what plane is this that's in Texas for painting and is ferrying to Washington?

Based on the tables at All Things 787 ( http://nyc787.blogspot.com ) it must be LN43, destined for China Southern. It is the only 787 at Fort Worth at the time of the grounding.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7020
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:53 am

Quoting Hmelawyer (Reply 68):
Quoting cornutt (Reply 66):
That's interesting that Boeing thinks they can find out something from a test flight.

It's not a test flight. It's a ferry flight back to Everett.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
ComeAndGo
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:57 am

Quoting cornutt (Reply 66):
I wonder if those big heavy bus bars that connect the cells together are transmitting vibration to the cell poles, and doing damage to the plate piles inside the cells.

That's probably what's happening.
 
cornutt
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:57 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:58 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 67):

I believe they're also checking to see if moisture is getting into the containment vessel / battery.

Ah yes, I had forgotten about that. Which leads to another conjecture: moisture accumulates on top of a cell and lets current flow between the terminal. Carbon tracking starts on the cell top and eventually shorts the cell.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:02 am

Quoting cornutt (Reply 66):
I've been wondering about that the last few days anyhow. The photos that the NTSB published of the CAT scans showed that the cell shorts occurred at the tops of the cells. I wonder if those big heavy bus bars that connect the cells together are transmitting vibration to the cell poles, and doing damage to the plate piles inside the cells.

Good point, cornutt. This story suggests that the battery design has come under increased 'suspicion' in the last few days:-

"Boeing Co. is proposing a series of battery design changes that it believes would minimize the risks of fire on its 787 Dreamliners and allow the grounded jets to fly again while it continues searching for a longer-term fix, say government and industry officials briefed on the matter.

"The company is looking at increasing the separation between cells in the lithium-ion batteries to reduce the potential hazards from heat or fire spreading within the batteries and adding enhanced heat-sensors, these officials said. Boeing also is considering ways to keep cells more rigid, preventing them from shifting under certain conditions and interfering with electronics."


Further down, the story says that Boeing are also working on improved 'containment' - and also addressing the possibility that, as mentioned above, moisture may also have played a part in the battery malfunctions:-

"The proposed changes would retain Boeing and GS Yuasa's underlying lithium-ion battery technology, say several industry officials. Possible changes include an enhanced covering—dubbed by some as "a containment box"—with the goal of keeping flames or chemicals inside the battery in case of overheating or other problems. In addition, Boeing has told some airline officials it is looking at ways to better protect the power packs from moisture, according to industry officials."



PS - link won't post - story from the Wall Street Journal.

[Edited 2013-02-06 18:06:46]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
cornutt
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:57 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:12 am

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 69):

It's not a test flight. It's a ferry flight back to Everett.

I think we're talking about different things. The ferry is to return a 787 that's in Texas back to Everett. The test flight hasn't been approved yet, and Boeing has not identified which aircraft they might use for that.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18672
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:29 am

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 62):
FAA has approved a ferry flight:

At least one will fly... even without passengers.   

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 73):
This story suggests that the battery design has come under increased 'suspicion' in the last few days:-

Boeing had better have hired a shaker table in a vacuum/moisture/thermal chamber. First they need to find a fault and then figure out how to stop it.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 73):
"The company is looking at increasing the separation between cells in the lithium-ion batteries to reduce the potential hazards from heat or fire spreading within the batteries and adding enhanced heat-sensors, these officials said. Boeing also is considering ways to keep cells more rigid, preventing them from shifting under certain conditions and interfering with electronics."

The first step is obvious. If something has trouble with over-heating, give it room to cool and measure the temperature.

IMHO, it will be cell flexing (damage creating a short), bus bars (vibration,impact, or something... I'm guessing I admit), or something with a single cell that wasn't recorded properly. I'm not a battery expert (but I am a fluid and cooling expert), so these details are outside my my forte'. So understand I'm just doing 'engineering test failed diagnosis 101.'

Quoting cornutt (Reply 71):
Which leads to another conjecture: moisture accumulates on top of a cell and lets current flow between the terminal. Carbon tracking starts on the cell top and eventually shorts the cell.

How does one prevent that from mattering? Better isolation from the terminals? A condensation drain path (I've put that in parts before...).

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:33 am

"The test flight hasn't been approved yet, and Boeing has not identified which aircraft they might use for that."

ZA005 which is in the flight test inventory would probably be the most likely candidate. It would be the easiest to instrument (if necessay), already has an experimental ticket and could be used to certify any "fixes" when the time came. They showed it on the news yesterday with a lot of activity taking place into and out of the fwd and aft cargo bays and identified it as the one Boeing would use although I'm not so sure that they got that info from Boeing.

[Edited 2013-02-06 18:35:36]
 
cornutt
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:57 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:42 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 74):
IMHO, it will be cell flexing (damage creating a short), bus bars (vibration,impact, or something... I'm guessing I admit),

I'm really beginning to wonder about those big ol' bus bars. Being aluminum, they probably aren't as heavy as they look, but I'll bet they are a lot stiffer than the plastic cell containers. I'm far from an expert on structures, but I've seen that sort of thing before... things that are very rigid have to be allowed to move a bit, or they will destroy whatever they're fastened to at the point of connection. (I remember being shocked when I first found out that the Space Shuttle's system for mounting large payloads in the payload bay allowed the payloads to slide around a bit, until a mechanical engineer explained it to me.) It could be that the aircraft, in some flight regime, excites a mode that was not anticipated when they did the shake tests on the battery.

As far as the moisture thing... well, they fixed that on car batteries by moving the terminals to the side, but that's probably not practical for these cells. One trick that I've seen is to glue a set of fins, like cooling fins but made of an insulating material, on to the cell top between the posts. It greatly increases the distance between the terminals and makes it a lot harder for a significant current to flow.
 
Unflug
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:25 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:42 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 38):
I started with a 3 month estimate. I was blasted for it... but this sort of issue takes time.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 49):
I think we're trending towards 3 to 5 months of grounding. I really want to be proven pessimistic. Once the 787 was grounded, I did not see a quick fix. I'm seeing identifying the issue taking longer than plan. Once the solution is found, there will be a 'quick fix' implimented. But as you know that takes months to certify even for short replacement intervals. Boeing and the vendor will then take a year (or more) stretching out the replacement intervals by design changes and DTP testing.

You might have a chance to be proven pessimistic:

Quoting Wolbo (Reply 61):
Boeing proposes an interim fix to get the 787 flying again.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...30206

From the article: "One source added that under a best-case scenario, passenger flights could resume next month."
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:37 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 72):
"Boeing Co. is proposing a series of battery design changes that it believes would minimize the risks of fire on its 787 Dreamliners and allow the grounded jets to fly again while it continues searching for a longer-term fix, say government and industry officials briefed on the matter.

"The company is looking at increasing the separation between cells in the lithium-ion batteries to reduce the potential hazards from heat or fire spreading within the batteries and adding enhanced heat-sensors, these officials said. Boeing also is considering ways to keep cells more rigid, preventing them from shifting under certain conditions and interfering with electronics."

A few threads ago there was discussion about who could disclose information about an ongoing investigation and the consensus was that only the NTSB could do this but dosen't this statement speak to information gained in the investigation?

NTSB are to issue an update today (7th Feb) at 11:00 a.m. EST
BV
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:36 am

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 78):
NTSB are to issue an update today (7th Feb) at 11:00 a.m. EST

Looks like we can already read most of what the NTSB is going to say:-

"The National Transportation Safety Board will publicly question at a news conference planned for Thursday morning in Washington whether the Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing adequately tested the lithium batteries that have caught fire on Dreamliners in the U.S. and Japan, ABC News has learned exclusively from a government source.

This morning, the chairwoman of the NTSB, Deborah Hersman, told reporters at a breakfast briefing that the initial investigation into the batteries found "multiple cells where we saw uncontrolled chemical chain reaction," including short circuiting and thermal runaway, "and those features are not what we would have expected to see in a brand new battery, in a brand new airplane.

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

"We're evaluating assessments that were made, whether or not those assessments were accurate, whether they were complied with and whether more needs to be done," Hersman said. "We want to make sure the design is robust, that the oversight, the manufacturing process, that those are all adequate -- and so that will be a part of our continuing investigation to determine the failure modes, what may have caused it and what can mitigate against that in the future."


http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/source-...ly-tested-boeing/story?id=18422464

Just 'instinct' on my part, really - though I've participated in the odd official investigation in my time - but I think we've arrived at a 'decision point.' The key issue, the 'new news,' appears to be the fact that the battery cells are arguably too close together - and, worse, that they are not firmly anchored, they can actually 'shift under certain conditions.' That appears to be a 'recipe' for the sort of short-circuits that have been occurring?

I expect that the NTSB will shortly allow Boeing to carry out test flights with modified batteries - and that that process will (within a few weeks) allow the 787 to return to service, subject to more permanent solutions (like completely re-designed batteries) being put in place as soon as possible. I further expect that the NTSB's press conference will be the first step in the inevitable 'blame game' - determining how much blame attaches to Boeing, the battery manufacturer, the FAA, and all other involved organisations.........

Anyway - the 'good news' is that the problem appears now to have been diagnosed; and that, further, the signs are that it looks like being 'treatable'........
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9074
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:25 pm

Few weeks is very optimistic, as the modified batteries will most likely require another containment box, which probably won´t fit the old position in rack, which would require changes to the rack,...
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:10 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 79):
The key issue, the 'new news,' appears to be the fact that the battery cells are arguably too close together - and, worse, that they are not firmly anchored, they can actually 'shift under certain conditions.' That appears to be a 'recipe' for the sort of short-circuits that have been occurring?

This seems to be the information being leaked out of Boeing which seems to preempt the NTSB announcement, I question the legality of these leaks.

Even if this were to be the cause of the meltdowns and this is certainly not proven at this point, it would still mean that Boeing had failed to adequately identify all possible failure modes and hence the fault tree was invalid. This should cause the FAA and NTSB to further investigate the certification process.

But as you say its a decision point for the NTSB and FAA, are they going to insist on the thorough working of all the problems and issues with the electrical / battery system or fudge it and allow a remediation of this 'identified' issue to lead to resumed flights.
BV
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7530
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:17 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 79):
battery cells are arguably too close together

I thought in any large battery pack cells are separated by a thin film.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:26 pm

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 82):
I thought in any large battery pack cells are separated by a thin film.

Don't often quote myself, DTW2HYD - but please refer to Post 72 above  :-

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 72):
"Boeing Co. is proposing a series of battery design changes that it believes would minimize the risks of fire on its 787 Dreamliners and allow the grounded jets to fly again while it continues searching for a longer-term fix, say government and industry officials briefed on the matter.

"The company is looking at increasing the separation between cells in the lithium-ion batteries to reduce the potential hazards from heat or fire spreading within the batteries and adding enhanced heat-sensors, these officials said. Boeing also is considering ways to keep cells more rigid, preventing them from shifting under certain conditions and interfering with electronics."
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:46 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 78):
A few threads ago there was discussion about who could disclose information about an ongoing investigation and the consensus was that only the NTSB could do this but dosen't this statement speak to information gained in the investigation?
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 81):
This seems to be the information being leaked out of Boeing which seems to preempt the NTSB announcement, I question the legality of these leaks.

You should re-read more carefully.

1. There are two processes going on - NTSB investigation of two battery incidents, and FAA review of the certification process.

2. Release of information about the NTSB investigation must be approved by the NTSB - it doesn't have to be the NTSB that releases it.

3. WSJ story says the information was provided by "government and industry officials".
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:51 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 84):

Maybe you should re-read the article, the leaks about the fixes are coming from Boeing. They are clearly talknig about informaton gained in the investigations.

CM and Tom and others insiders argued many threads back that all information had to come from the NTSB and even posted the regulation.
BV
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9590
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:52 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 81):
This seems to be the information being leaked out of Boeing which seems to preempt the NTSB announcement, I question the legality of these leaks.

Yep, no one ever accused the government and its minions of keeping secrets, let's see if anyone at the NTSB is going to be charged for blabbing about the investigation, somehow I doubt it.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:14 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 85):
Maybe you should re-read the article

I did.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 85):
the leaks about the fixes are coming from Boeing

Where does it say that?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 85):
CM and Tom and others insiders argued many threads back that all information had to come from the NTSB

No they didn't.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 85):
even posted the regulation.

Which says that the public release of information must be approved by the NTSB, not necessarily released by the NTSB.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
swallow
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:23 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:16 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 72):
"The company is looking at increasing the separation between cells in the lithium-ion batteries to reduce the potential hazards from heat or fire spreading within the batteries

It appears Elon Musk had a point re the domino effect of fire spreading within the battery, "Large cells without enough space between them to isolate against the cell-to-cell thermal domino effect means it is simply a matter of time before there are more incidents of this nature,"

He and Donald Sadoway of MIT thought Boeing should redesign the pack architecture of the battery to reduce risk of thermal runaway.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ttery-fundamentally-unsafe-381627/

Regarding moisture in the power packs, is this similar to the condensation issue aka "rain in the cabin" or totally unrelated?
The grass is greener where you water it
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:19 pm

What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:12 pm

Form your own quote: "SAY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND INDUSTRY OFFICIALS BRIEFED ON THE MATTER". How on earth anyone could construe that to mean

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 85):
the leaks about the fixes are coming from Boeing

is beyond me.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:26 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 86):
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 81):
This seems to be the information being leaked out of Boeing which seems to preempt the NTSB announcement, I question the legality of these leaks.

Yep, no one ever accused the government and its minions of keeping secrets, let's see if anyone at the NTSB is going to be charged for blabbing about the investigation, somehow I doubt it.

How is Boeing leaking information the fault of the government?
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26633
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:30 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 81):
Even if this were to be the cause of the meltdowns and this is certainly not proven at this point, it would still mean that Boeing had failed to adequately identify all possible failure modes and hence the fault tree was invalid.

That would require omniscience at Boeing and the various regulators.

Since that is not possible, we have Airworthiness Directives to update the fault tree.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9590
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:51 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 93):
How is Boeing leaking information the fault of the government?

The usual "unamed sources" or "sources who choose to stay un-named because they are not authorized to speak" are government officials.
If there is a a problem with legality of leaks that is a government and not a Boeing problem, the mouth piece is usually not the source of the leaks.
If the leaks were directly from private individuals the government would be on them like "white on rice", only government sources are allowed to leak with impunity - usually -.
 
flood
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:05 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:03 pm

 
flyingbird
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 7:21 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:17 pm

The

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 89):
B-2727 is being prepared for its ferry flight.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/B.../KPAE

The Dreamliner will fly over Denver in a couple of minutes
http://fr24.com/BOE382
 
servantleader
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:17 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:33 pm

NTSB disputes Boeing's "single cell theory" and questions the assumptions made to certify the Li-ion batteries -- "interim report" is due out in 30 days. This all but puts to rest any hope of the current design being re-certified, even with the tweaking currently being floated by Boeing.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-of-boeing-dreamliner-battery.html
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26633
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:42 pm

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 97):
This all but puts to rest any hope of the current design being re-certified, even with the tweaking currently being floated by Boeing.

The NTSB has no authority over certification.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2216
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: FAA Grounds 787, Part 8

Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:04 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 98):
The NTSB has no authority over certification.

Quite true, that authority rests with the FAA. However, the notion the FAA would ignore NTSB's statements and concerns isn't realistic. Boeing may have to beef up separation of the cells further and possibly add some shielding between the cells to help protect against a thermal cascade between the cells. NTSB's remarks were based on the JL incident.

Further separation of the cells, shielding between cells and stepped up monitoring could be enough if the cause of the initial short is pinned down, identified and corrected.

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