FAA Grounds 787s
There was no APU fire.
There was a fire (o/heat?) in the APU battery. It is identical to the main aircraft battery.
There was a fire (o/heat?) in the APU battery. It is identical to the main aircraft battery.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This decision to outsource so much of the plane(and design!) has clearly backfired.Somebody very high up took a big risk and it hasnt worked.Cheap labor deals overseas or trying to outmaneuver home unions isnt excuse enough for risky uncalculated outsourcing.Product quality is key.Your entire reputation rests with the product.Publicity now is horrendous even if the actual problem turns out to be a storm in a teacup.The solid simple rugged reliability and friendly pilot interface has always been their selling-point.Remove that trump card and theyll never claw back any ground from the brave new world in Toulouse.As a pilot,I think thats an unfortunate turn of events.Far too much confidence is placed in engineering excellence of the FAR EAST.I dont buy it.Japs are over-rated and dont even get me started on the Koreans and Chinese who blatantly copy and steal patents.You want to outsource engineering parts that are safety critical?Try the Germans.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: CLE
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you wrote this post from a computer of some sort, you're using technology built largely outside the USA. Just because it was built elsewhere hardly means it was a bad decision. Obviously bad decisions were made, but it's not necessarily true, at all, that these Japanese batteries are themselves at fault.
The xenophobia is disturbing, and hypocritical.
Rananim
I suggest you have a look at the 787 build history. Particularly the reasons why Boeing brought the Section 48 in-house by buying Vought.
Bloomberg
The structures built by Japanese companies is superb in comparison.
Bloomberg
The structures built by Japanese companies is superb in comparison.
Last edited by TURIN; 17th Jan 2013 at 18:23. Reason: cross post
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's face it the 787 Dreamliner programme began as a response to the A380 and Boeing have come unstuck. They've also been hit by a reduction in US military spending.
They skimped on the R and D and the birds are coming home to roost.
Boeing also made a fortune out of the 747/737 line and never thought Airbus
could be a real challenge.
They skimped on the R and D and the birds are coming home to roost.
Boeing also made a fortune out of the 747/737 line and never thought Airbus
could be a real challenge.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Driffield
Age: 73
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technology has to be pushed to the limits. Airlines want less weight, so they use less fuel, therefore reduce costs. Manufacturers Airbus and Boeing strive and compete with each other to achieve this. Pushing the boundaries results in problems, so both the 380 and 787 have come across snags. They will throw money at the problem until they get it sorted. Pushing the boundaries, can mean taking risks. So far no disasters, I'm sure they will get it right in the end.
Airlines want less weight, so they use less fuel, therefore reduce costs. Manufacturers Airbus and Boeing strive and compete with each other to achieve this. Pushing the boundaries results in problems, so both the 380 and 787 have come across snags.
I think most airlines prefer a slightly heavier aircraft that they can fly, rather than one that sits on the ground looking pretty...
This decision to outsource so much of the plane(and design!) has clearly backfired.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: N 19 E 28
Age: 49
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 24 hrs news channels have a role to play in all of this . Most new aircrafts have almost always had teething issues . Remember the A320 test flight or the fuels pumps on the B 737 ngs .
I am sure there were teething problems especially related to introduction of new technologies in the bygone years E.g 747 or A300 ( maybe someone could point out a few , was still in diapers at the time ) , Only it did not make to CNN or BBC within 15 mins of an event happening.
Regulators / Airlines sometimes want act to events based on the level of media coverage to an incident as they want to be seen as proactive and not asleep on the job . In the era of 24 hrs news channels one bad move even though small can have large ramifications as perception more important than reality .
Boeing I am sure will find solutions like Airbus has done with the 380 , but only time will tell is the damage lasting or temporary ?
I am sure there were teething problems especially related to introduction of new technologies in the bygone years E.g 747 or A300 ( maybe someone could point out a few , was still in diapers at the time ) , Only it did not make to CNN or BBC within 15 mins of an event happening.
Regulators / Airlines sometimes want act to events based on the level of media coverage to an incident as they want to be seen as proactive and not asleep on the job . In the era of 24 hrs news channels one bad move even though small can have large ramifications as perception more important than reality .
Boeing I am sure will find solutions like Airbus has done with the 380 , but only time will tell is the damage lasting or temporary ?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 70
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How long, any guesses?
One Japanese carrier has cancelled all their 787 flights through the 26th. My feeling is that this may be a longer-term action. Put me down for 3 weeks.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be up to the customer at this point.... No one trusts the FAA, they have demanded a squishy compliance, and Boeing won't risk a soft date, and see the planes remain on the ground.
I think pilots are being asked their pov.....Once burned, twice shy....
Twice burned, pound sand.
I think pilots are being asked their pov.....Once burned, twice shy....
Twice burned, pound sand.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For you EE types.....
I certainly appears that Lithium batteries are not ready for prime time in aircraft usage.
One of the possible alternative is to replace them with NiCads.
How much larger/heavier would a NiCad battery have to be to replace the power available from the existing Lithium batteries?
Would the charging/monitoring software have to be modified greatly to accommodate NiCads?
I certainly appears that Lithium batteries are not ready for prime time in aircraft usage.
One of the possible alternative is to replace them with NiCads.
How much larger/heavier would a NiCad battery have to be to replace the power available from the existing Lithium batteries?
Would the charging/monitoring software have to be modified greatly to accommodate NiCads?
won't help sales............
Le bus probably will dispute that premise.
The current problem is interesting as it has had a cluster in service that was not "apparently" evident during the flight test program, assuming the rear E/E fire in the test program was wiring related, not initiated by battery characteristics. Would be worth a review of that event to see if group think occurred in the FTA.
Boeing is pretty good at building planes when they get around to it... there is a lot of resources being allocated by all reports, and at the end of the day, there are alternatives for the case of just battery issues. For more in depth issues if identified, then system redesign is far more problematic, not necessarily going for the B763/GENX alternative... but there be dragons if the problems extend beyond the battery issues alone.
slides work... that is nice to get out of the way.
The buyers may be vocal and miffed with TBC, (A A-B etc) but in the end they profit from the current duopoly that exists, being able to play US vs EU for better deals. The fare payers have short memories, most times the attention span of the SLF does not extend to the pre departure safety briefing that is there for their well being, an example of the global ADHD pandemic that exists in todays twitter/facebook/TXT instant gratification world.
If OEM behaviour was seriously considered by the global masses, then TBC would already be in deep doo doo over the scandalous handling by the OEM and the regulator of the B737NG ringframes and the manufacturers disgraceful treatment of the QA inspectors that identified this gross breach of compliance to the TCDS by the outsource entity. That the FAA has failed to ground the B73NG's impacted by what can only be characterised as bogus parts that do not comply to the production drawings impacts the good standing of this agency. The position where the airlines and their NAA's take action on airworthiness that the OEM's NAA is reticent to undertake should be setting off alarm bells on the "state of the union..."
Last edited by fdr; 17th Jan 2013 at 21:04.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Aoteoroa
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The battery problem could be of greater significance if it is related to a very serious flight test event.
Boeing had time and opportunity to investigate and rectify the flight test fault, thus if the current problems are similar this might suggest that either the fix doesn’t work or that the original problem was not sufficiently understood. Neither of which inspire the much needed confidence, nor aid any forecast for a quick resolution, particularly as there was a significant delay in the flight test programme due to the electrical fire."
PEI_3721 has hit the nail on the head - this went through my mind immediately also
Boeing had time and opportunity to investigate and rectify the flight test fault, thus if the current problems are similar this might suggest that either the fix doesn’t work or that the original problem was not sufficiently understood. Neither of which inspire the much needed confidence, nor aid any forecast for a quick resolution, particularly as there was a significant delay in the flight test programme due to the electrical fire."
PEI_3721 has hit the nail on the head - this went through my mind immediately also
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: On a survey line somewhere...
Age: 42
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H2
Le bus probably will dispute that premise.
The current problem is interesting as it has had a cluster in service that was not "apparently" evident during the flight test program, assuming the rear E/E fire in the test program was wiring related, not initiated by battery characteristics. Would be worth a review of that event to see if group think occurred in the FTA.
Le bus probably will dispute that premise.
The current problem is interesting as it has had a cluster in service that was not "apparently" evident during the flight test program, assuming the rear E/E fire in the test program was wiring related, not initiated by battery characteristics. Would be worth a review of that event to see if group think occurred in the FTA.
Interesting article posted earlier, seems to be saying that the specific type of Li-Ion batteries fitted to customer delivered aircraft differed from those originally fitted to test/certification aircraft:
Boeing looks to boost 787 lithium ion battery service life
Excerpt from above link:
"Boeing has not determined which 787 will be the first to receive the new battery modifications, although multiple programme sources have told Flight's FlightBlogger affiliate that the new battery could be introduced as early as Airplane Seven, the first production 787 scheduled for delivery to All Nippon Airways in the third quarter of 2009."
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Age: 74
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Battery Chemistry
@asc12
Thanks on the battery chemistry. For those that might be interested here is a link from 'Battery University' comparing the different available Lithium battery chemistries:
Types of Lithium-ion Batteries
It seems that the chosen type is one of the safer ones but maybe not safe enough or they haven't really thought out the operational envelope.
Maybe they should be ejectable like the reactor cores on the Starship Enterprise
Thanks on the battery chemistry. For those that might be interested here is a link from 'Battery University' comparing the different available Lithium battery chemistries:
Types of Lithium-ion Batteries
It seems that the chosen type is one of the safer ones but maybe not safe enough or they haven't really thought out the operational envelope.
Maybe they should be ejectable like the reactor cores on the Starship Enterprise
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone in the industry whether designer, manufacturer, operator, pilot or engineer (the list should read t'other way round in my book) knows that batteries are trouble. Chemicals in packages made as light as possible. How many of you remember having to call for the 'tolley-acc' to start the first engine because the a/c batteries were too low on a cold morning? How many of you remember waking in the mornings to the sound of cranking car engines cranked by blithering idiots who only succeeded in waking those of us who wanted or needed to sleep in? I don't remember for sure when I last had a flat battery in an aircraft, boat or car. We take the new reliability for granted.
However, the improvement has come bundled with risk. For the most part the problems are below the pilot, press and passenger radar. The 787 problems are different. They are real, they are documented, I sincerely hope they are not malicious (it'll bite the other side) and they are concerning.
This aircraft is in danger of getting a bad name, like the DC10. We mustn't let that happen if we can help it. It will harm the entire industry. Can someone with connections in both commercial camps get their engineers together to help sort this problem NOW with words of support from Airbus.
However, the improvement has come bundled with risk. For the most part the problems are below the pilot, press and passenger radar. The 787 problems are different. They are real, they are documented, I sincerely hope they are not malicious (it'll bite the other side) and they are concerning.
This aircraft is in danger of getting a bad name, like the DC10. We mustn't let that happen if we can help it. It will harm the entire industry. Can someone with connections in both commercial camps get their engineers together to help sort this problem NOW with words of support from Airbus.