Goodness. We're going to need a new forum for these threads.
Can anyone tell if the airplanes with battery problems are the same planes, or even the same batteries on different aircraft? A single battery seems like a much more tractable problem than if the (alleged) overheating is taking place on different batteries.
At least two different planes as one JAL and the other ANA.
JAL 787 still on ground in BOS. As all we know is that tonight's landing was prompted by a 'battery malfunction warning', we won't know what battery it is.
I suspect that this was probably an over-reaction to something that must be at the back of the minds of all 787 flight crew. If it was a genuine battery malfunction then we have to start considering whether there is any significance in the fact that so many incidents have occurred in Japanese operated 787's.
Is there something in the 'customer electrical specification' of the of the planes built for JAL and ANA that could be initiating these fires/warnings?
All Nippon Airways has grounded all 17 Boeing 787 planes in its fleet for emergency inspections after a malfunction on board forced one of the Dreamliners to make an emergency landing at Takamatsu Airport in the west of Japan.
*A battery malfunction on one of ANA’s Boeing 787 Dreamliners forced an emergency landing at Japan’s Takamatsu airport on Wednesday morning.
I suspect that this was probably an over-reaction to something that must be at the back of the minds of all 787 flight crew.
I don't think that would be the case, the fact that they are reporting smoke in the cockpit is a good indication that this is a real problem. Even if it is in the minds of all 787 crew, then that means there is a problem that needs to be fixed and fixed quickly.
I suspect that this was probably an over-reaction to something that must be at the back of the minds of all 787 flight crew.
I don't think that would be the case, the fact that they are reporting smoke in the cockpit is a good indication that this is a real problem. Even if it is in the minds of all 787 crew, then that means there is a problem that needs to be fixed and fixed quickly.
In flight the pressure should push the smoke away from there, but once you're back down it will change. That could by itself set of a quick reaction.
Phalanger. Don't know what your background is, but your statement that inflight the pressure should push the smoke away from the cockpit is pretty "Broad-Brush". Depending on the source of the smoke and how it is entering the cockpit it may not always be possible to evacuate the smoke from the cockpit area immediately. Until the source can be isolated and removed the smoke will continue. Once this is accomplished the "Smoke Evacuation Procedure" would follow.
@Squawk-7600 - That's not the same thing as "blaming" Boeing though, is it?
As is invariably the case these days, the components have come from all over the world, and from various suppliers - it's no different for Airbus. If ANA ground their B787s then that's a matter for them and Boeing to hash out in terms of responsibility - it's not a given that Boeing themselves are responsible for the problem, just as it's not a given that Airbus are solely responsible for any issues on their types.
[EDIT : Tempting as it may be to engage in "schadenfreude", it just makes the person that does so look like as much of an arse as the folks who do so when the boot is on the other foot. Be a grown-up - don't fall into that trap!]
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 16th Jan 2013 at 02:15.
The idea is it should move with the flow. Same reason smoke goes up from a fire, heat creates an airflow that it follows. So while you may not get none, it should be moving concentrations away from such areas (unless they are generated in those areas).
Location: Secessionist Republic of Western Australia
Age: 56
Posts: 15
'Flight' is considering the case of a container under accelleration. I don't have a helium balloon handy, but I suspect that it would move aft, relatively, due to the inertia of it's mass. The aircraft in question would likely have velocity but not accelleration in flight.
