FAA Grounds 787s [Archive] - Page 8

FlightlessParrot

27th Apr 2013, 05:13

and why do you drive your car in traffic when you can avoid it by taking a bus?

most risk is avoidable, but living a normal life usually take precedence

Look, this is getting silly. AAMOF, I do use a bus when convenient. Living a normal life does not include choosing to fly on a newly introduced aeroplane, whether the initial faults have been discovered or not (and I have felt the same about the 380, and have avoided paxing on it).

The real point, of course, is that scoring debating points off people who express caution about the success of the fixes does NOT persuade anyone, and sounds rather desperate. I can well understand anxiety about an aeroplane which is so important for Boeing, and the airlines, but the emotional urgency in responses like that suggests a similarly emotional atmosphere behind the approval of the fixes. "This has to work because it's so important, and anyone who doubts it is JUST NOT LISTENING TO REASON."

Earl

27th Apr 2013, 05:42

hope nothing to do with this, but 2 747-8 new aircraft in nipon colors now in marana, inducted into long term storage, 4 more to follow on the sched.

ITman

27th Apr 2013, 08:25

Latest Propwash states that each of the UA 787's will cost 2, 8m dollars for the updates, so perhaps the earlier comment of 465k for the Coke machines was on the ball.

freshgasflow

27th Apr 2013, 08:31

BBC News - New batteries give Dreamliner clearance for take-off (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22319537)

denachtenmai

27th Apr 2013, 11:51

Boeing Engineering Leader 787, Richard J Horigan, Thursday 25th, from AVIATIONPROS.com
all potential causes of the battery fire have been eliminated with the new redesigned battery system
I sure hope those words don't come back to bite him :ooh:
Regards, Den. still not going to fly on one yet

sidestick driver

27th Apr 2013, 12:06

The "DURACELL" has landed in Nairobi (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22315317). Great stuffs!!!! ;)

An Ethiopian Airlines 787 Dreamliner has flown from Addis Ababa to Nairobi, the first commercial flight by the Boeing aircraft since all 787s were grounded in January.

The 50 planes around the world were grounded due to battery malfunctions that saw one 787 catch fire in the US.

Over the past week teams of Boeing engineers have been fitting new batteries to the aircraft.

This was after aviation authorities approved the revamped battery design.

The Ethiopian Airlines plane took off at 09:45 local time (07:45 GMT) and landed in Nairobi, Kenya, some two hours later.
Engineering team

Each 787 has two of the lithium-ion batteries which caused problems.

In addition to new versions of the batteries which run at a much cooler temperature, the batteries are now enclosed in stainless steel boxes.

These boxes have a ventilation pipe that goes directly to the outside of the plane. Boeing says this means than in the unlikely event of any future fire or smoke, it would not affect the rest of the aircraft.

The two-hour flight from Addis Ababa in Ethiopia to Nairobi in Kenya is not normally a flight that would make headline news around the world.

But this journey is special, because it should mark the end of an incredibly damaging chapter for Boeing's flagship airliner.

I'll be talking to passengers on board the flight, and it'll be fascinating to see how they feel about flying on a plane that was grounded across the globe only last January after one battery caught fire and another overheated, forcing an emergency landing.

Boeing and its customers, who include British Airways, Virgin and Thomson, will be desperate to put the whole episode behind them.

Boeing said it put 200,000 engineer hours into fixing the problem, with staff working round the clock.

On Thursday, the US Federal Aviation Administration issued a formal "air worthiness" directive allowing revamped 787s to fly.

Japanese airlines, which have been the biggest customers for the new-generation aircraft, are expected to begin test flights on Sunday.

A total of 300 Boeing engineers, pooled into 10 teams, have in the past week been fitting the new batteries and their containment systems around the world.

Boeing is expected to complete repairs on all 50 of the grounded Dreamliners by the middle of May.

In addition to the Dreamliners in service with airlines, Boeing has upgraded the 787s it has continued to make at its factory in Seattle since January.

The Dreamliner entered service in 2011. Half of the plane is made from lightweight composite materials, making it more fuel efficient than other planes of the same size.

The two lithium-ion batteries are not used when the 787 is in flight.

They are operational when the plane is on the ground and its engines are not turned on, and are used to power the aircraft's brakes and lights.

fantom

27th Apr 2013, 12:10

How come Ethiopia can afford 787s?

ITman

27th Apr 2013, 12:37

Brown bags....

badgerh

27th Apr 2013, 12:44

Ethiopian Airlines is trying very hard to be Africa's number one airline. They are investing big in both passenger and freight operations and generally speaking do an OK job.

Passengers have been waiting for this as up till now most mid-haul busy routes have been served by ancient 767s. They have a few 777 ER that are new but they desperately needed their 787s. Typical of Ethiopian to be first to fly the "fixed" 787 just for publicity.

Heathrow Harry

27th Apr 2013, 13:26

Ethiopian have been a major Boeing customer for years - I think they were one of the first African airlines to buy the 707 way back

In general they aren't that bad - especially when you look at the alternatives

for years the best route to Yemen was via Addis with EA

glad rag

27th Apr 2013, 17:33

Each 787 has two of the lithium-ion batteries which caused problems.

In addition to new versions of the batteries which run at a much cooler temperature, the batteries are now enclosed in stainless steel boxes.

:confused::confused:

Jetstar2Pilot

28th Apr 2013, 02:22

I've been a professional pilot for 38 years (this year) and I'd hop into the back of a B787 and fly it anywhere in the world without one tidbit of worry or concern.

I'd just enjoy the nice cabin pressure differential, quiet ride and watching the 'plastic' wings flex during any turbulent air. (Sorry about the word plastic....we all know this is not the case).

It's gonna' be a great flying machine.....history will prove this. And NO I don't work for Boeing.

Fly safe my friends:ok::)

skol

28th Apr 2013, 06:40

Jetstar2,

I've been a 'professional pilot' since 1969 (44 years in May when I joined Fiji Airways), and still flying, and nothing would entice me on board a 787, especially more then a few miles away from the nearest suitable alternate.

lasernigel

28th Apr 2013, 08:10

I'd just enjoy the nice cabin pressure differential, quiet ride and watching the 'plastic' wings flex during any turbulent air. (Sorry about the word plastic....we all know this is not the case).

As an electronics engineer and a SLF I have read with growing concern about Boeing's "fix". I work on medical equipment as you can guess by my title which area. If one of our systems had a safety related issue the FDA would worldwide, issue a notice about this problem. There is NO cozying up to the FDA to be had. It either gets fixed properly or it can't be used. This is a single patient system not one that has 200-300 people on it at one time.
Now then if my system was bashed into a wall or another system, I would expect it to stay in alignment and be usable on patients.
Knowing that at airports accidents happen between ground handling equipment and planes, in "old aluminium" fuselages a "bash" can clearly be seen. It would be inspected for the type and extent of damage and a decision would be made to say whether it was airworthy or not.
With PLASTIC fuselages I wonder what Boeing's SOP is? A quick look will not determine the extent of the damage/potential crack. At 39000ft I don't want to be the SLF to find out when it splits. I know X-ray inspection should be used but will this be available at airports worldwide?
Any answers to a simple question??
I for one will be avoiding this aircraft.

Cool Guys

28th Apr 2013, 08:58

I'd just enjoy the nice cabin pressure differential, quiet ride and watching the 'plastic' wings flex during any turbulent air. (Sorry about the word plastic....we all know this is not the case).

I am also looking forward to the comfortable experience in this cool plane.

For those who have not read this whole thread the containment boxes are not something dreamed up recently by Boeing as a "fix" to the recent issues. They were stipulated by the FAA in 2007 as part of the special conditions for introducing new technology not covered by existing regulations. The original document containing these special conditions was posted by someone a few pages back on this thread. Boeing are just 6 years late in complying with these requirements.

Cows getting bigger

28th Apr 2013, 10:20

Cool Guys, sorry but just looking for clarification regarding your last post.

Are you saying that the technology wasn't initially assessed at being new thus no need for the box, or is it the case that Boeing overlooked the box requirement when initially designing the system?

Coming from a safety background, I'm not heartened by phrases such as ".... just six years late in complying...." :hmm:

toffeez

28th Apr 2013, 11:27

Cool Guys, that's an unfortunate choice of words. The 787 Spitfire is not cool, it's fuming hot, that's the problem.

It is for now a fairly advanced plane that will one day be consigned to history like the former "stars" 727 and DC-9.

Dannyboy39

28th Apr 2013, 11:40

This Airworthiness Directive explains all: US-2013-08-12

EASA Airworthiness Directives Publishing Tool (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/)

112 man hours + approx £455,000 parts cost. :eek:

Cool Guys

28th Apr 2013, 11:47

Hi CGB,

The document referred to is here:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-04-30/pdf/E7-8186.pdf

See the "Proposed Special Conditions" on page 2.

Where Boeing/FAA screwed up is explanied in a few recent releases. The following artical by Flightglobal explains it quite well.

NTSB hearing on 787 batteries reveals Boeing shift on testing (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ntsb-hearing-on-787-batteries-reveals-boeing-shift-on-testing-385038/)

Basically the LI battery installation was supposed to preclude any explosion, release of harmful gases etc but the testing performed did not represent real failure modes and hence the battery installation system was not designed for real failures. Note: The "battery installation" includes the containment structure.

Disclaimer. I am not an expert in the 787 battery system. I am only going by public documents and official releases. Im happy to be corrected by further documents but armchair experts with generalised criticisms will be ignored.

Cool Guys

28th Apr 2013, 11:50

Thanks DB39.

This is a better reference than the ones I provided.

Jetstar2Pilot

28th Apr 2013, 12:16

Thanks Danny Boy

I just read the PDF AD. It's logical and makes total sense to me. Hopefully the cost(s) to effect this AD will be borne by Boeing. (Or perhaps jointly with the battery manufacturer).

Cough

28th Apr 2013, 15:04

Danny Boy - Great link - But $ not £....:ok:

DaveReidUK

28th Apr 2013, 16:30

It is for now a fairly advanced plane that will one day be consigned to history like the former "stars" 727 and DC-9. As will, eventually, every aircraft that's ever been built ...

kenneth house

29th Apr 2013, 02:05

Reported on Bloomberg this evening.

oceancrosser

29th Apr 2013, 06:55

The 787 Spitfire

Thanks Toffeez, good one!

training wheels

29th Apr 2013, 07:35

Aviation Herald mentions that an Ethiopian Airlines 787 flew for the first time yesterday after the worldwide grounding earlier in the year. Can anyone confirm?

Accident: ANA B788 near Takamatsu on Jan 16th 2013, battery problem and burning smell on board (http://avherald.com/h?article=45c377c5&opt=0)

BOAC

29th Apr 2013, 07:51

How much confirmation do you seek? BBC News - Boeing 787 Dreamliner returns to service in Ethiopia flight (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22315317)

training wheels

29th Apr 2013, 08:15

How much confirmation do you seek? BBC News - Boeing 787 Dreamliner returns to service in Ethiopia flight (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22315317)

Preferably from PIC of the flight, but if not, then I guess the BBC is a pretty reliable source as well ;) ... Great to see it's back in the air again :ok:

BOAC

29th Apr 2013, 08:32

Preferably from PIC of the flight we'll ask him to contact you.

FlightPathOBN

29th Apr 2013, 15:19

ANA will do 200 flights with cargo only, and have temp monitors in the battery case that report on-board and to the ground.

Do they have attorneys in Ethiopia? :}

Speed of Sound

29th Apr 2013, 16:45

Hopefully the cost(s) to effect this AD will be borne by Boeing. (Or perhaps jointly with the battery manufacturer).

Unlikely, as the Yuasa LVP65 cell has been around for over eight years now and seems to work fine in other applications.

Kiskaloo

29th Apr 2013, 19:07

Be sure to stay away from the Airbus A350 as well, lasernigel, since it also uses CFRP for it's fuselage.

You might also want to stay away from the Airbus A380, since it has more CFRP in it by weight than the 787 and A350. It also uses a fair bit of composite-laminate (GLARE) in the upper fuselage.

Jetstar2Pilot

29th Apr 2013, 19:40

Be sure to stay away from the Airbus A350 as well, lasernigel, since it also uses CFRP for it's fuselage.

He probably should take the trains or the busses......much safer.

lasernigel

30th Apr 2013, 06:12

Be sure to stay away from the Airbus A350 as well, lasernigel, since it also uses CFRP for it's fuselage.

All I'm trying to ask is a sensible question. What is Boeing's and now for that matter Airbus's SOP if a ground handling accident happens. How do you inspect carbon fiber for damage at an airport?

He probably should take the trains or the busses......much safer.

Flown in most aircraft and still do, and have high respect for pilots and maintenance staff. So the sarcasm isn't really warranted.:ugh:

CafeClub

30th Apr 2013, 08:12

FWIW Qatar is resuming 787 flights, with a DXB - DOH flight tomorrow (Wed).

denachtenmai

30th Apr 2013, 10:06

FWIW Qatar is resuming 787 flights, with a DXB - DOH flight tomorrow (Wed).
What's that, about 250 miles? doubt if that qualifies as etops then :rolleyes:still won't fly on one, yet

Pub User

30th Apr 2013, 11:08

lasernigel

How do you inspect carbon fiber for damage at an airport?

The engineers have a device called a Ramp Damage Checker. It is an ultrasound device, very simple to use, and will indicate to a line engineer whether or not specialist investigation is required.

lasernigel

30th Apr 2013, 11:51

Jetstar2Pilot

30th Apr 2013, 12:33

http://www.hexcel.com/Resources/DataSheets/Brochure-Data-Sheets/Composite_Repair.pdf

This explains in A LOT OF DETAIL how the repair is effected.

lasernigel

30th Apr 2013, 13:53

Very interesting. But would that level be available at most airports. Looks a very comprehensive way of repairing.:ok:

Jetstar2Pilot

30th Apr 2013, 15:52

But would that level be available at most airports?

I would guess not. It sounds very sophisticated/complicated. My guess (uneducated of course), is a specialized 'team' would have to be sent in the make the field repair.

This happens a lot with other systems on various aircraft.

FlightPathOBN

30th Apr 2013, 19:33

Actually, the repair process from Boeing has been posted on Pprune in other threads.

COMPOSITES IN THE AIRFRAME AND PRIMARY STRUCTURE (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4_06/article_04_2.html)

"In addition to using a robust structural design in damage-prone areas, such as passenger and cargo doors, the 787 has been designed from the start with the capability to be repaired in exactly the same manner that airlines would repair an airplane today — with bolted repairs. The ability to perform bolted repairs in composite structure is service-proven on the 777 and offers comparable repair times and skills as employed on metallic airplanes. (By design, bolted repairs in composite structure can be permanent and damage tolerant, just as they can be on a metal structure.)

In addition, airlines have the option to perform bonded composite repairs, which offer improved aerodynamic and aesthetic finish. These repairs are permanent, damage tolerant, and do not require an autoclave. While a typical bonded repair may require 24 or more hours of airplane downtime, Boeing has taken advantage of the properties of composites to develop a new line of maintenance repair capability that requires less than an hour to apply. This rapid composite repair technique offers temporary repair capability to get an airplane flying again quickly, despite minor damage that might ground an aluminum airplane."

and this is informative....

http://www.niar.wichita.edu/chicagoworkshop/Chicago%20Damage%20Tolerance%20Workshop%20-%20July%2019-21,%202006/Wednesday%20-%20Session%201%20Presentations/Boeing%20Transport%20Experience%20with%20Composite%20Damage% 20Tolerance%20&%20Maintenance%20-%20Fawcett%20&%20Oakes.pdf

Jetstar2Pilot

30th Apr 2013, 21:22

and this is informative....

http://www.niar.wichita.edu/chicagow...0&%20Oakes.pdf (http://www.niar.wichita.edu/chicagoworkshop/Chicago%20Damage%20Tolerance%20Workshop%20-%20July%2019-21,%202006/Wednesday%20-%20Session%201%20Presentations/Boeing%20Transport%20Experience%20with%20Composite%20Damage% 20Tolerance%20&%20Maintenance%20-%20Fawcett%20&%20Oakes.pdf)

Thank You That was VERY informative:ok::ok:

airsound

9th May 2013, 18:42

Aviation Week's 'Things with Wings' blog, 6 MayThe NTSB has issued an "urgent" procurement request (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=311c9b3fdba327ae24c04b4ffdf7d1ec&tab=core&_cview=0) to have a Maryland company perform computed tomography (CT) scans starting May 6 on as many as 48 Boeing 787 lithium-ion battery cells.
The work signals a rush for the Board to find a root cause for the battery issues that grounded the fleet as airlines begin revenue service with modified 787s this month and into June.

"[The tests] must also be completed within the shortest timeframe possible to provide the fastest possible receipt of this information to avoid potential future accidents involving this type of aircraft battery," says the NTSB in a "sources sought" notice published on May 3.
But wait - there's more.......Highlighting the continued concern in the aviation industry about lithium-ion battery technology, the NTSB mandated that the contract be issued to a local company, as the cells cannot be shipped via air cargo.What were Boeing thinking of?? (My bold)

Also. should perhaps mention that the NTSB has since said that the request for the scanswas not meant to signal an acceleration of its efforts to find the root cause of 787 battery problems from January. Rather, the agency says document contained “contracting language” meant to quickly secure funding for the work. The Board is correcting the language in the request, and says there is no new information on the investigation

ATC Watcher

9th May 2013, 20:30

Fresh this evening :
Boeing (NYSE: BA) has rolled out of the factory the first 787 Dreamliner to be built at the increased production rate of seven airplanes per month. The airplane, which rolled out earlier this week, is the 114th 787 to be built overall and the 100th 787 to be built at the Everett, Wash., factory.

Boeing's 787 program is on track to achieve a planned 10 per month rate by year-end. The production rate accounts for airplanes built at the Everett Final Assembly facility, the Everett Temporary Surge Line and Boeing South Carolina.

To date, 50 787s have been delivered to eight airlines. The program has more than 800 unfilled orders with 58 customers worldwide.

and :
ANA is to resume services with its Boeing 787 fleet from 1st June, 2013, following the successful completion of a series of battery system modifications, safety checks and test flights. The reintroduction of the 787 aircraft will result in partial amendments to ANA's summer flight schedule for international and domestic services.
ANA will also introduce the Dreamliner onto a further three international routes from this summer – Narita to Beijing and Shanghai and Haneda to Taipei – bringing the number of overseas destinations served by the 787 to five.

Osamu Shinobe, President and CEO of ANA, said “We are pleased to announce that our 787 aircraft will be reintroduced on scheduled flights from June onwards. ANA’s priority is the safety of our passengers. Our engineers have worked closely with Boeing to undertake the required improvements and we are fully satisfied with the safety of our 787 fleet.”

inetdog

10th May 2013, 00:31

I have been waiting for this (more CT scans) to surface!
A short sentence somewhat buried in the report on the CT scan of the failed battery from Boston mentioned a recommendation to do extensive CT scans on "normal" batteries. I think that the analyst saw some unexpected or unexplained things in the "undamaged" front battery of the same aircraft. That battery underwent non-destructive testing only to provide a reference comparison for analyzing the failed cells.

Yaw String

10th May 2013, 12:31

Lasernigel...
This was my first question, about composite structures on aircraft,having witnessed a lifetime of damage inflicted by ground service vehicles.

Blunt impact, :ugh: not reported by culprit!.....Certainly will sharpen our walk-around skills,....me thinks! :eek:

MWorth

10th May 2013, 13:00

I have been waiting for this (more CT scans) to surface!

There's been nothing more really than has been discussed here. Despite the ironies involved in shipping, I am quite curious to hear what if anything is found.

Sultan Ismail

10th May 2013, 13:17

The routes identified in Post 1813 are all less than 1200nms, one is less than 1000nms.

Not ETOPS material, go to top of climb and glide to the destination.

ANA have already claimed the 787 fiasco is hurting them, the above routes will probably hurt more.

ozaub

14th May 2013, 02:11

JAL is telling its customers that although nobody knows what went wrong Boeing has addressed all possible faults. See Identification of All Probable Causes and Development of Corrective Actions | Safety and Flight Information | JAPAN AIRLINES Corporate Information (http://www.jal.com/en/flight/boeing787/countermeasure/everything.html).

My own views were published last week at Dreamliner's nightmare run (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/dreamliners-nightmare-run-20130509-2jb30.html) The article is based on testimony at public hearings plus info from NTSB data dump beforehand especially http://dms.ntsb.gov/public%2F54000-54499%2F54251%2F524338.pdf

Ngineer

14th May 2013, 02:41

The engineers have a device called a Ramp Damage Checker. It is an ultrasound device, very simple to use, and will indicate to a line engineer whether or not specialist investigation is required.

So a baggage / waste-water / catering guy has a ding with the fuselage and notices no obvious signs of damage and decides not to report it (maybe because he is on the minimum wage or some other rediculous conditions and is worried about the implications). No problem.....the engineer will obviously pick-up any unforseen damage pre-departure with his pocket device, AKA - the "Ramp Damage Tester". Totally awesome!!!

ATC Watcher

14th May 2013, 06:09

ozaub : very good article. Resumes in a few words the mess they ( we , in fact) are in. The article could have been named : "the failure of the regulators". But maybe some good will come out of all this .

Kiskaloo

14th May 2013, 14:49

If there is no obvious signs of damage, then there very likely is no damage. CFRP (and laminates like GLARE used on the A380) is (are) more resilient to impact than Al is.

EEngr

14th May 2013, 15:07

ATC Watcher (http://www.pprune.org/members/2112-atc-watcher)

the failure of the regulatorsThis may turn out to be where most of the interesting changes will occur. Will the FAA revisit their ODA (Organization Designation Authorization) process? Or will they continue with their process oriented certification model. "As long as you do what you say you are going to do, its approved."

Meanwhile, the NTSB is pursuing the technical issues. But they are doing so only in an advisory capacity. Should they actually find something important, will the FAA mandate a change? Probably. But for future designs, the regulatory body with the technical expertise (NTSB) is sitting outside the loop. Until there's an incident. Then, they'll get to contribute.

I thought this was a regulatory model we were supposed to be moving away from.
:(

lomapaseo

14th May 2013, 17:13

This may turn out to be where most of the interesting changes will occur. Will the FAA revisit their ODA (Organization Designation Authorization) process? Or will they continue with their process oriented certification model. "As long as you do what you say you are going to do, its approved."

Meanwhile, the NTSB is pursuing the technical issues. But they are doing so only in an advisory capacity. Should they actually find something important, will the FAA mandate a change? Probably. But for future designs, the regulatory body with the technical expertise (NTSB) is sitting outside the loop. Until there's an incident. Then, they'll get to contribute.

I thought this was a regulatory model we were supposed to be moving away from.
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gif

Still other views on this are;

There are level of technical expertise. I wouldn't go to far in assigning a greater or lesser level to the FAA or NTSB

From a regulatory standpoint the FAA has more than the NTSB, while from an investigation standpoint the NTSB has more depth than the FAA and from a design standpoint(what actually can be done) Boeing tops them both. From a working standpoint the FAA participates in the investigation process and selects top level product related engineering candidates from world wide resources in their "specialist" categories.

So who's right? neither even including Boeing. The way we get at this is to include the issues in a ,"special condition" that applies to all manufacturers. That not only evens the playing field but ferrets out where all the expertise lies in ARAC style meetings concluding with public comment.

For me I am quite content for the FAA to use this process to solicit comments and not to attempt to force anything on them via internet chat forums.

I really doubt that the NTSB will participate since by expressing acquiescent to an issue may diminish their ability to conduct an impartial investigation should it turn out wrong.

TURIN

14th May 2013, 20:36

#1821
Kiskaloo
If there is no obvious signs of damage, then there very likely is no damage. CFRP (and laminates like GLARE used on the A380) is (are) more resilient to impact than Al is.

Lightweight impact yes.

If something with momentum and large mass hits it at more than 2 mph yer in trouble.

Well, that's what Boeing told us anyway.

The suits are going to have to get their heads round the idea that sacking someone for reporting a ding is a very very bad idea around this beast. :hmm:

CAAAD

15th May 2013, 09:02

Iomapaseo

Your description of the process does not coincide with my understanding and experience.

A Special Condition is applicable only to a specific type or variant.

It is initially agreed between the Applicant and the Regulatory Authority behind closed doors.The first draft is then circulated to lots of other parties for comment.

The comments are then usually consigned to the waste paper bin.

When AIA and the Applicant are satisfied with the SC the FAA falls into line and it becomes part of the basis of certification for the product.

The SC may then be used as the basis for an SC on other certifications, and in the fullness of time may form an update to the Regulations.

I'm afraid your description of the SC process did not include the enormous lobbying power of US Industry and the relative frailty of the FAA.

lomapaseo

15th May 2013, 12:42

CAAD

I'm afraid your description of the SC process did not include the enormous lobbying power of US Industry and the relative frailty of the FAA.

of course you are somewhat correct ... but it works both ways. The rest of the industry (Boeings competitors and the public intelligencia) are not about to let a manufacturer get an upper hand on introducing a new and untested concept into the market.

I've had my say in commenting on Special Conditions and had little problem in turning a one sided argument. On the other hand I've have personally reviewed in total a raft of comments on a Special Condition and most of these were filed without technical knowledge or understanding and should have been binned.

In the end I have faith in the process except for the possibility that the key players e.g. Boeing and the regulator misled themselves and any public comments to that effect were devoid of data. This process is not a voting process, it's based on technical knowledge that can be vetted.

CAAAD

15th May 2013, 15:57

Imopaseo

Your favourable experience of the Special Condition process may possibly have been as a result of acting on behalf of American Industry.

But the really contentious SCs are not data driven. They are wrapped up in difficult probabilistic argument and in the final analysis your guess is as good as mine. So the final decision is not conducive to rigorous technical vetting.

And that is where the clout of the Industry lobby comes to the fore.

Very few SCs are changed once they have left the closed doors of the original writers.

I believe the drafting of Regulations / Requirements is a much more open, democratic and transparent process. SCs, being product specific are far more susceptible to commercial pressures.

lomapaseo

15th May 2013, 18:23

CAAD

I believe the drafting of Regulations / Requirements is a much more open, democratic and transparent process. SCs, being product specific are far more susceptible to commercial pressures.

Could be true, but what was Airbus and other manufactureers response to the SC process? If mute then all your points are vindicated.

My interest in other manufacturers doesn't mean to exclude other parts of the industry, it is only because taken as a group they should represent suitable knowledge and a floor to the ignorance base. So if we want to blame the FAA or Boeing, why was this not obvious at the time? or is it simply after the fact "I wish I had told you so?"

It seems we have left the barn door ajar but nobody saw it at the time.

HazelNuts39

15th May 2013, 19:50

As far as I can see, the Special Conditions issued to Boeing for the B787 Li-Ion batteries are a carbon copy of the Special Conditions issued to Airbus A380 a few years earlier. (ref. 71 FR 74755; December 13, 2006)
Correction: One year earlier

captjns

16th May 2013, 11:47

Flyers' Group Seeks Limit On 787 Flights

http://www.avweb.com/newspics/787_assembly.jpg

Flyers' Rights, an advocacy group for airline passengers, said on Tuesday the FAA should restrict 787 flights to within two hours of an airport "until the safety of its lithium-ion batteries is proven." The restriction wouldn't affect flights over the continental U.S. or most flights to Europe, but trans-Pacific and transpolar routes would be off limits. "Our proposed actions are both urgent and necessary," said Paul Hudson, president of the organization. "Adequate testing of the batteries haven't been done and the fire investigation is not finished." United Airlines, the only U.S. carrier flying 787s, plans to resume (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/UnitedWillRelaunch787May20_208669-1.html) domestic flights with the airplane next Monday, and will start flying the Denver-Tokyo route on June 10.

With an FAA-approved fix (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/boeing_787_dreamliner_faa_battery_approval_208554-1.html) for the battery problem in place, Boeing said last week it has increased its production rate for the 787 from five to seven airplanes per month. The company plans to be building 10 per month by the end of the year. Meanwhile, the NTSB is continuing (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NTSBPlansUrgent787BatteryTests_208661-1.html) its tests and research to try to determine a cause for the battery problems. In a letter (http://strandedpassengers.********.com/2013/05/may-8-2013-hon.html) to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Flyers' Rights also asked him to create an ad hoc advisory committee of independent battery experts and open a public docket for comments on the battery fix.

jolihokistix

16th May 2013, 15:10

Loose nut, really? Only 4 sq. cm, though.
Switchboard problem on ANA 787 during test flight -NHK WORLD English- (http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20130516_35.html)

EEngr

16th May 2013, 15:14

captjns

I assume that the proposed two hour limit (ETOPS 120) is based upon the reliability (or lack thereof) of the APU as an alternate source. The safety issues have been addressed with the fireproof box. But at this point, I don't see how anyone can derive useful reliability numbers when the root cause of the problem is not understood.

I find it interesting that the FAA and Boeing are both talking about safety issues having been fixed (the battery not burning a hole through the bottom of the atrcraft). But its the NTSB that is looking into the cause. And following from that, systems reliability.

ATC Watcher

16th May 2013, 15:39

It says a message indicating a problem with the jet's electric system appeared on one of the cockpit screens, but no smoke was detected.
The cockpit crew used a backup system to continue the flight before the plane landed safely

Nice thing to experience during a test flight supposed to verify exactly that..:E

ironbutt57

16th May 2013, 15:52

strange both incidents were on Japanese carriers

FlightPathOBN

16th May 2013, 21:10

more electrical panel problems...

strange both incidents were on Japanese carriers

not really, they have the bulk of the aircraft...

sb_sfo

17th May 2013, 14:14

not really, they have the bulk of the aircraft...

and way more experience with them

jolihokistix

17th May 2013, 14:48

Good post FlightPathOBN. The electrical panel may yet turn out to be the bigger problem. Let's hope this really was a one-off. There's a good article here:
Boeing 787’s problems blamed on outsourcing, lack of oversight | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020275838_boeingoutsourcingxml.html)

fitliker

17th May 2013, 15:29

How will the carbon fibre aircraft cope with any large electrical input like a lightening strike ?
What mitigation is included or are pilots supposed to avoid weather in these planes ?

poorjohn

17th May 2013, 15:38

How will the carbon fibre aircraft cope with any large electrical input like a lightening strike ?
What mitigation is included or are pilots supposed to avoid weather in these planes ?IIRC there's a wire mesh imbedded in the skin. There was controversy regarding the electrical bonding between segments at one point. I suppose the flight test program demanded a certain number of lightning hits. (Hopefully someone who actually knows can raise my low bar with some facts)

PAXboy

17th May 2013, 17:02

With the ongoing PR from Boeing ... last night I was watching a documentary about the first 150 years of the London Underground system. When it opened it had the only kind of locomotives then known - steam engines.

When the pax began complaining about the profusion of smoke and steam on the platforms and in the tunnels - the Metropolitan Railway Ltd replied by, "Publicising the benefits of smoke and steam for health."

Nothing changes ...:hmm:

jolihokistix

19th May 2013, 10:51

From the NHK English link that stopped working on the previous page. Japanese NHK pre-translation original also available if requested. In the quest for detail:

"...the switchboard on a 787 jet was blackened, apparently by heat, during a pilot training flight from Tokyo to Hokkaido on May 4th. It says a message indicating a problem with the jet's electric system appeared on one of the cockpit screens, but no smoke was detected. The cockpit crew used a backup system to continue the flight before the plane landed safely at an airport in Chitose, Hokkaido. A close check by maintenance staff showed part of the board in the electrical room beneath the middle of the cabin had been blackened. One of the nuts that connects wires and the board had come loose and an area around it of about 4 square centimeters had turned black. ANA suspect that staff from Boeing had failed to tighten the nut after they loosened it during pre-flight checks, causing the nut and its surrounding area to overheat."

HalloweenJack

19th May 2013, 12:13

to appease the regulators boeing have a new design for the 787 to enclose all potentially dangerous electrical systems

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/eteimaging/eteimaging1301/eteimaging130100001/17082267-brown-cardboard-box-with-airplane-wings-attached-to-it.jpg

Machinbird

19th May 2013, 15:47

One of the nuts that connects wires and the board had come loose and an area around it of about 4 square centimeters had turned black.This has to be a Maintenance Control or a Quality Assurance issue. The work on the electrical panel was either not documented properly or not inspected properly.

Loose high current electrical connections are a well understood problem in commercial electrical maintenance. The loose connection begins to heat, the metal begins to oxidize, the resistance of the connection increases, the heating increases, and pretty soon you have metal at the scene of action being vaporized, but very little current flowing through the connection.

I wonder if they are doing infrared surveys of the electrical gear to look for developing problems?

poorjohn

19th May 2013, 16:27

Kinda sad that in what must be an "on our very best behavior" high-visibility period for Boeing stuff like this still happens. If a specialist team can't do better than that, how do the daily grunts on the production line cope with a 50%-increased production rate? Overtime, lots of new hands.

FlightPathOBN

20th May 2013, 16:09

United 787 UAL-1 flight today..just pushed back KIAH -KORD

United (UA) #1 ? 20-May-2013 ? KIAH - KORD Flight Tracker ? FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL1/history/20130520/1600Z/KIAH/KORD)

Dufo

20th May 2013, 20:37

No UN 4G on that box. Forget it.

Lonewolf_50

20th May 2013, 20:56

How will the carbon fibre aircraft cope with any large electrical input like a lightening strike ? What mitigation is included or are pilots
supposed to avoid weather in these planes ?
Probably something similar to what the F-18 uses, which has been in production for about three decades.

The industry learned that one a while back. ;)
IIRC there's a wire mesh imbedded in the skin.
Indeed.

archae86

20th May 2013, 21:15

United 787 UAL-1 flight today..just pushed back KIAH -KORDComplete with Boeing and United senior officials McNerney and Smisek aboard.

FlightPathOBN

20th May 2013, 21:17

"Boeing is taking a multilayered approach to lightning protection of the 787 fuel tank:

• The initial lightning strike must be dispersed quickly around the airframe to prevent concentrated damage. Also, the airplane's electronic flight instruments must be shielded from disruption by the intense electromagnetic field. To accomplish this, Boeing will embed a thin metal mesh or foil in the outer layers of the composite fuselage and wings.

• A slight gap between a wing-skin fastener and the hole it goes into could be a source of sparking as current jumps the gap. Boeing will install each fastener precisely and seal it on the inside to ensure a snug, spark-free fit.

• Inside the wings, any gap along the edges where wing skin meets internal structural spars could cause a spraying out of electrons in a lightning strike — a phenomenon called "edge glow." Boeing will seal the edges with nonconducting goop or glass fiber.

• And, in case the efforts to shut out ignition sources fail, Boeing will install a nitrogen-generating system (NGS) that reduces flammable vapor in the wing tanks by filling the space above the fuel with inert gas.

Last November one safety team became concerned that Boeing was relying too heavily on tight, precise installation of the fasteners. It worried that a loose fastener could not be detected after construction.

"The latent failure of any one fastener leaves the airplane one event away from a catastrophic incident" caused by a spark, the team's safety review stated.

The team recommended making the NGS system "dispatch critical," meaning the airplane is not allowed to take off if the nitrogen system isn't functioning.

The team was praised for "unwavering determination" in pursuing its solutions to the lightning-safety issues "despite the unpopularity of this position with others" — but its view did not prevail.

"We don't have to make it flight critical," Gillette said.

Gillette said this kind of debate is common among engineering teams.

"These are really strongly held opinions by really bright people," Gillette said. "It's almost like politics — once you believe in a solution, you really believe in it."

Gillette said that back in November the fasteners were not working as required — some were pulling right through the skin.

But Boeing adjusted the fastener design and installation process. And to test for loosening of the fasteners, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which is making the wings, has shaken skin panels through the equivalent of one and a half airplane operating lifetimes.

Extensive tests on fastener installation will be completed within weeks, Gillette said.

FAA regulations demand a cold statistical outcome: The 787 design has to ensure that the chance of lightning sparking a fuel-tank explosion in flight is less than one in a billion.

Gillette said the NGS system is expected to operate at least 97 percent of the time, but the safety systems combined will assure the 787 exceeds the one-in-a-billion probability target.

"It is not a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket," he said."

Gillette said the NGS system is expected to operate at least 97 percent of the time, but the safety systems combined will assure the 787 exceeds the one-in-a-billion probability target.

"It is not a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket," he said.

note: the Safety Team's view did NOT prevail???

toffeez

21st May 2013, 05:36

Is that Walt Gillette, former head of the 787 design team?

denachtenmai

21st May 2013, 10:00

"It is not a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket," he said."
Hmm, I think this remark should be brought to the attention of the electrical system designers:ooh:
Still not going to fly on one, yet.

gas path

21st May 2013, 14:22

There is nothing new about any of that. All a/c have to confirm to SFAR88 and the CDCCL (Airbus FAL) items during manufacture AND maintenance!
Loose fasteners could occur on a metal skinned airframe as well. The reasons for a tight installation is for ultimate mechanical strength and to prevent a fuel leak as much as bonding. Also the finished installation is cap sealed. Any PD between the fastener the skin and the collar/nut is fully enclosed.
The 787 with its CRFP wing is no different in that respect. The only thing of note is the 'tiger striping' on the wing planks to ensure a safe conductive path through to the wing root. This is also there to prevent the skin internal finish from failing and exposing the CRFP if there were to be a strike.:8

glad rag

21st May 2013, 17:09

The team recommended making the NGS system "dispatch critical," meaning the airplane is not allowed to take off if the nitrogen system isn't functioning.

I'm glad to hear that it's not on the MEL list with a fourteen day period then.....:hmm:

glad rag

21st May 2013, 17:10

FlightPathOBN

21st May 2013, 18:49

The reasons for a tight installation is for ultimate mechanical strength and to prevent a fuel leak as much as bonding. Also the finished installation is cap sealed. Any PD between the fastener the skin and the collar/nut is fully enclosed.

On the 787, the tight fit is required as part of the lightning strike protection...

A slight gap between a wing-skin fastener and the hole it goes into could be a source of sparking as current jumps the gap. Boeing will install each fastener precisely and seal it on the inside to ensure a snug, spark-free fit.

I would be very concerned about the isolation of the grounding system. This was one of the problems noted with the battery issue on the aircraft already....

jpfdtrigger

21st May 2013, 18:52

Guys, have you heard IATA changed their safety policy regarding Li ion batteries transportation. (cellphones, ipads, ....you name it) this will be very costly!!. The reason : Industry concern with li ion batteries.:ugh::ugh: Smells like a scapegoat for boeing faulty design. Seems Now we ALL will have to pay for them, wether we fly the 787 or not. What do you think?

Volume

23rd May 2013, 09:29

I'm glad to hear that it's not on the MEL list with a fourteen day period thenAccording to my knowledge it is 30 days. :eek:

Pub User

23rd May 2013, 10:06

The NGS has a rectification category 'A' so cannot be extended, but is has a specified interval of 10 days.

grumpyoldgeek

27th May 2013, 22:00

Heathrow Harry

28th May 2013, 08:27

never that I noticed.............

archae86

29th May 2013, 19:04

Guy Norris reports on the Aviation Week blog that the 50th and last battery system update for previously delivered 787s is complete.

Norris blog post on 787 updates (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbb&plckPostId=Blog:7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost:8d70077c-3e40-4c24-a6b5-969681993e5c)

FlightPathOBN

29th May 2013, 20:11

as a result of the added titanium wires for lightning strike, strengthening tabs for wings and tail assemblies, wingbox additions, and the battery boxes, the MTOW now allows for 2 passengers per aircraft...

barit1

29th May 2013, 22:36

Latest AW&ST p.35 says 787 APU overheats due to inlet door closing after shutdown. It also ties this to rotor bowing, causing vibes on restart.

Bowed rotor (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/456053-ge90-engine-noise-during-start.html) has been discussed previously on Pprune - and can happen on any turbine (e.g. APU) but seems to me this is independent of APU overheat.

archae86

29th May 2013, 22:58

I don't have my print copy yet so can't compare this to the p.35 version, but suspect AWST online APU article (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_05_22_2013_p0-581314.xml) has highly related APU content.

It asserts that there are procedural workarounds to avoid the problem at some cost and inconvenience, with forthcoming improvements intended to stop the need for the special procedures.

TSR2

30th May 2013, 19:55

The report is dated February 14th 2013.

Skyblade

31st May 2013, 10:30

A well written article on 787 battery issue.

Avionics Magazine :: System Design: Fixing the 787?s Batteries (http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/commercial/System-Design-Fixing-the-787s-Batteries_79265.html#.Uahz5EA3CyE)

inetdog

1st Jun 2013, 05:06

Skyblade:
A well written article on 787 battery issue.
Perhaps well written overall, but their mention that the forward battery is used to start the main engines seems ludicrous to me based on what I have read here and elsewhere.
The forward battery can be used to power the fuel metering and transfer system to allow partial refueling without engine, APU or ground power. But to start the main engines without ground power requires the APU.

And if I recall correctly, the "very high surge current rating of 1000A max.," is actually above the rating that Yuasa gives for the batteries.

Momoe

1st Jun 2013, 06:50

I've learned more from other articles on the battery failures, nothing new here, just a rehash of known events albeit reasonably concise and non dramatic.

The best article IMO is here James Surowiecki: The Trouble with Boeing’s 787 : The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2013/02/04/130204ta_talk_surowiecki)
This gets closer to the 'Root cause' than anything so far.

Pub User

1st Jun 2013, 09:18

The forward battery can be used to power the fuel metering and transfer system to allow refueling without engine, APU or ground power.

The refuelling system will only fuel up to 1500kg on battery power. This allows the APU to be started and refuelling can then continue.

ATC Watcher

2nd Jun 2013, 09:55

[QUOTE]The world’s most modern aircraft in LOT’s livery took off today at 1:18 PM from the Warsaw airport to New York. This is the first transatlantic passenger flight of the LOT Polish Airlines Dreamliner after the three-month break. Thus, the Polish national carrier resumes scheduled transatlantic flights with Boeing 787 aircrafts.

The aircraft with the registration number SP-LRC with 205 passengers onboard is scheduled to reach the JFK airport in New York at 4 PM local time. The flight will last 8 hours and 8 minutes. [/QUOTE
Looks like an ETOPS flight straight away . With nearly full house. So confidence seems to be back , in Poland at least .

Just a spotter

3rd Jun 2013, 07:15

Reports from the Japan Times (3rd June 2013) that JAL has pulled a 787 fight due to a sensor issue related to the battery

A Japan Airlines’ Boeing 787 Dreamliner scheduled to fly Sunday from Tokyo to Beijing experienced a problem with an air pressure sensor for its battery container, prompting JAL to use another aircraft for the flight.

JAL 787 is grounded by glitch in battery bay | The Japan Times (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/03/national/jal-787-is-grounded-by-glitch-in-battery-bay/#.UaxB-spMzVI)

WHBM

3rd Jun 2013, 15:18

From a 19 May incident on a 787 which had just re-entered service

One of the nuts that connects wires and the board had come loose and an area around it of about 4 square centimeters had turned black....

and now

Japan Airlines halts 787 flight after battery pressure sensor problem (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100783163)

TOKYO, June 3 (Reuters) - Japan Airlines Co said it halted a scheduled 787 Dreamliner flight on Sunday after engineers detected a faulty pressure sensor in one of its newly reinforced lithium-ion batteries ......
The fault which affected the Tokyo-Beijing flight on Sunday was caused by tape that had been mistakenly left over the pressure sensor when Boeing engineers installed the new batteries, Japan Airlines said in a press release.

What chance a quality installation of the fix ? I thought ETOPS certification was based on bullet-proof maintenance procedures. Not like these ones by the "fix team".

Mark in CA

5th Jun 2013, 05:25

Perhaps the pilots in Japan should be overseeing their nuclear power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/business/japanese-pilots-worry-about-repaired-boeing-787-jets.html

jolihokistix

5th Jun 2013, 07:16

Here's another Mitsubishi example of how simply dropping a Lion battery (during testing for example) can set the scene for thermal runaway. Something to be kept in the back of the mind, anyway.
Mitsubishi Motors recalls plug-in hybrids -NHK WORLD English- (http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20130604_35.html)

Quote: "The maker has already suspended production of the 3 models.
Mitsubishi says the recall was triggered by 3 cases of batteries short-circuiting and melting. The company says its investigation found that some lithium-ion batteries had been accidentally dropped on the floor during testing.

The ministry says the batteries with damaged electrodes could short-circuit during charging, or even overheat and melt."

ozaub

6th Jun 2013, 02:13

JAL has good reason to be sensitive about Boeing repairs. In 1985 JAL suffered worst loss of life in a single aircraft accident after Boeing botched repair of rear pressure bulkhead on a 747. See http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2005/aug/28-33.pdf. Long ago but many remember.

JohnDixson

6th Jun 2013, 12:08

The article reports that JAL did the repair ( with Boeing supervision, whatever form that took ) and that JAL signed off on the repair.

Kiskaloo

7th Jun 2013, 01:02

JL operated the plane on test flights and at least one revenue flight (as the issue was discovered during a turn) so what did this JL flight crew / ground crew notice that the earlier JL flight crews / ground crews did not that led them to identify the tape still being on?

RobertS975

7th Jun 2013, 02:02

WAW-JFK is really not an ETOPS route unless some of the enroute diversion possibilities are unavailable due to weather.

ATC Watcher

7th Jun 2013, 03:40

RobertS975 : WAW-JFK is really not an ETOPS route unless some of the enroute diversion possibilities are unavailable due to weather.

Thanks did not know. Can you explain ? looking at the tracks that day and the flight time , it really looked like it ( but I did not see the PLN).

dfstrottersfan

7th Jun 2013, 07:40

Noticed on Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker! (http://www.flightradar24.com/) ? the first ? Thompson 787 fly over us Manchester to Prestwick and that it's previous flights were Paine Field to MAN. Would that have been an ETOPS flight?

Yankee Whisky

11th Jun 2013, 13:54

Any new aircraft introduced into service WILL incur teething problems and the two in Japan are no exception. Let's not get carried away with trivial things and look at repeat problems instead (i.e. trend of a particular problem, such as Airbus pitot probes etc)):=

glad rag

11th Jun 2013, 14:35

Yea right. :rolleyes:

jolihokistix

11th Jun 2013, 17:20

787s were grounded and they are now flying again, but it is a probationary period and people will be interested in every little thing that occurs to see if any patterns might be emerging. People are still nervous in Japan. The press in Japan will pick up on anything, feeling it is in the public interest, whereas these incidents may not get reported in English.

Part of me wonders whether there is a reluctance in the English press to follow any further, whether they just want to give these new planes a break, or if there is some other force at play.

Anyway, in the interests of freedom of information I have given a rough translation of the two articles above. Personally I feel it is better to know what is happening up at the sharp end where the majority of Dreamliners are putting in the exploratory miles.

At the same time I agree that this thread concerns the electrics, specifically Lion battery performance, so if this is off-topic then point taken.

11th Jun 2013, 19:09

Do you have daily comparisons against the B777 as well?

Probably not - but what's the global 777 fleet size compared to the 787? With Japan being the most prolific user of the type and with both public and pilots expressing concern/subjecting to scruitiny ANY event is going to be reported - and 2 (minor) events in two days on a fleet of 50ish aircraft resulting in a cnx and a turn back isn't great PR.

The problem is if there are multiple sensor/valve/switch events then questions start to be raised about quality. Is there not already history of nuts working loose causing minor scorching, misfit battery boxes/tape over sensors?

ATC Watcher

11th Jun 2013, 20:40

Correct A4. quality seems to be an issue indeed, but not surprisingly if you read the Seatle Times..

On a comparative note, if one looks at the MA-60, one can see that the FAA at least takes things seriously..
In China and Indonesia , the largest MA-60 operators, the aircrfat continues to fly despite a much worse record than the 787 : only 64 a/c in service , 7 accidents, of wich 3 in 2 months .
But to be fair , the FAA did not certify it..

busTRE

11th Jun 2013, 21:07

cockney steve

11th Jun 2013, 21:09

By 'Eck!...you are a fussy lot for a mere 116 million USD , you expect perfection? :} Just google "787 price" and you'll find an article in"Forbes" stating that 116 mill. is the going price (a 45% discount off list) Get yours today! whilst stocks last!:p the actual build -cost is $ 200 Mill....So, yes! they're literally buying their way into the market-place.

The Forbes article is quite enlightening.

jolihokistix

12th Jun 2013, 04:49

One of the two latest incidents above (11 June) has just been translated and reported here: Singapore-bound JAL Dreamliner turns back due to anti-icing system glitch ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion (http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/singapore-bound-jal-dreamliner-turns-back-due-to-anti-icing-system-glitch)

Er... not so fast, the mods have deleted my own splendid translations above. :} Go with this one, more official then ... :ok:

Edit, the second incident has now been picked up in this article here, but in less detail and accuracy than my translation of yesterday.
ANA Boeing 787 has engine problem before takeoff ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion (http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/ana-boeing-787-has-engine-problem-before-takeoff)

Edit 2. There were three incidents in the last three days, summarized here:
ANA Dreamliner domestic flight cancelled - Yahoo! Finance UK (http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ana-dreamliner-domestic-flight-cancelled-062715595.html)

Earl

13th Jun 2013, 03:10

Any good F/E would have said wait.
You never identified the problem!
Same situation will occur again.
Only thing you have done is put a band aid over a bullet hole.
Cheap system to contain when happens again.
Never addressed the real problem or solved anything.
Probaly why they got rid of all F/E.
We knew the system and could cause them many problems.
Hope the pilots there now actually look at this.

ATC Watcher

13th Jun 2013, 06:14

Boeing admitted in April that despite months of testing it did not know the root cause of the problems, but rolled out modifications it said would ensure the issue did not recur.

Japanese humor .

Mark in CA

13th Jun 2013, 06:18

Probably doesn't apply directly to aircraft, but interesting nonetheless.

Our Lithium-ion Batteries journal covers four key subjects that
demonstrate how UL is working to enhance the safety of lithium-ion
batteries. Fault Tree Analysis is the foundation of how we approach
lithium-ion battery safety — by identifying and understanding the root
causes of failures. We found that one of the leading causes of failure is
an internal short circuit (ISC), so we developed a simple and repeatable
way to induce ISCs. The Indentation Induced ISC test enables us to
study battery behaviors when an ISC occurs. This and related research
has given us insights that we’ve used to update existing standards and
create new ones to address the most recent applications of lithiumion batteries.
Finally, a new area of potential concern, Aging Effects, is
a significant area we are focusing on, given the trend toward longer
battery life and second-use applications for lithium-ion batteries.

http://www.ul.com/global/documents/newscience/journal/sustainableenergy/New_Science_SE_Journal_Issue_2.pdf

EEngr

13th Jun 2013, 19:04

Boeing admitted in April that despite months of testing it did not know ....That IS the root cause.

GEDriver

17th Jun 2013, 08:14

Heard rumour from a guy who works for Boeing Company.
The Problem with B787 is NOT Battery itself, but its battery controller (to avoid from overcharging) made by Korean Company LG.
Any info on this???

archae86

17th Jun 2013, 13:43

Any info on this???It has been widely and consistently reported since the start of this that the 787 battery charger is provided by Securaplane, which is not LG.

Doubtless there are plenty of semiconductor parts inside the box supplied by others, and it could be that LG is a supplier of one deemed a problem--but that does not fit the public statements very well.

Boeing's public statements have included mention of tightened operating parameters implement in the chargers. They have also mentioned changes to the batteries themselves, and to the monitoring and control of their manufacture.

All this is in addition to the more widely discussed containment aspects of the changes.

Does your rumor add any detail as to what the controller is alleged to have been doing wrong?

Putt

19th Jun 2013, 22:52

This is speculation, not rumor...overcharging the battery could be the problem, meaning the charger is not wellregulated.
One rumor is that a contribyting factor was altitude...hard to imagine that.
Li Ion batteries have been known to overheat, I don'y know if later technologies have eliminated that characteristic.
You have to rely on the engineering guys and the FMEA ( Failure Mode Effects and Analysis ) and testing.

poorjohn

20th Jun 2013, 16:08

overcharging the battery could be the problem, meaning the charger is not wellregulated.The charging system probably needed better feedback from the battery pack, overlooked or denied due to increased cost and complexity outweighing need. I think (strictly from reading this thread) that's been fixed.

ATC Watcher

24th Jun 2013, 05:13

rumour of a 787 with brakes problems grounded in the US ? anyone with more details ?

cwatters

24th Jun 2013, 08:58

Boeing 787 Dreamliner diverted due to brakes | News24 (http://www.news24.com/Travel/International/Boeing-787-Dreamliner-diverted-due-to-brakes-20130624)

Los Angeles - A Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet was forced to make an emergency landing during an internal US flight on Sunday, due to a problem with its brake system, United Airlines said in a statement.

continues.

Yankee Whisky

24th Jun 2013, 11:32

Bustre....Yeah, I've always considered airborne electrical fires trivial
too!!

Are you serious?

A real fire, yes and false fire warnings are indeed to be considered serious as well IF they repeat themselves. One offs are analysed as to cause and a fix made right after the incident occurrence. This fix may be written up in a Technical Note or AD if there is a suspected possibility of recurrence on other aircraft.
Is every false incident, therefore, of importance to discussions on this website ? Not if everyone were to start reporting them...................this site would run out of space ! False fire warnings occur quite frequently.:O

FlightPathOBN

24th Jun 2013, 16:02

Seems like there is also a prevailing oil pressure issue as well...

Poor United....what is this...4 United 787's in a week?
Edit: just checked...United has 6 787's.

Second United Dreamliner diverted with oil-related problem (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/us-boeing-dreamliner-diversion-idUSBRE95J1BD20130621)

"United flight 125 from London's Heathrow airport to Houston diverted to Newark, New Jersey due to a low oil indication, United said in an emailed statement. The airline said the aircraft landed normally and without incident around 2:15 p.m. local time and customers were put on other flights."

FlightPathOBN

24th Jun 2013, 22:01

I suppose one should add the other 787 issues in the last 2 weeks besides United's..

Last week, a Denver to Tokyo flight was diverted because of an oil indicator light. On June 12, an All Nippon Airways Dreamliner flight was canceled when an engine would not start. On the previous day, a Japan Airlines flight to Singapore returned to Tokyo because of a deicing problem.

So deicing, brakes, oil indicator, wont start...

How many flights vs flights with issues?

For me, there is a difference between having certain bugs with a new launch aircraft, and having 50% of the flights diverting due to issues.
Somehow, that is a bit outside of the 10 -6 SMS probablity.

derbyshire

27th Jun 2013, 17:14

FlightPathOBN

27th Jun 2013, 17:36

I believe that the cause of that engine failure has been determined and fixed.

Dont both the A380 and B787 use RR Trent engines?

ironbutt57

27th Jun 2013, 18:18

Several airplanes use Trent engines..

FlightPathOBN

27th Jun 2013, 18:22

I know, but I dont understand the derbyshire post regarding the A380 engine issue...

slf4life

27th Jun 2013, 23:58

True, the incident was 'spectacular' by comparison, but that's where the comparison ends. It was an engine failure, the cause identified and fixed by the engine manufacturer.
It is quite a different thing to have an airframe experience a seeming myriad of disparate systems issues requiring diversion. I won't speculate, but in my mind, as a potential pax, I start thinking overall QC. For damn sure Boeing can't be happy.

cyflyer

28th Jun 2013, 03:45

Another 'glitch' yesterday ?

Japanese Dreamliner held due to A/C power glitch - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/27/travel/boeing-787-dreamliner-air-con-fault/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)

Speed of Sound

28th Jun 2013, 09:25

Gentlemen, don't you think that the 787's problems fade into insignificance when compared to the horrendous uncontained turbine burst of the A380's engine(s)?? Yet that subject seems no longer to be mentioned. How come?

Probably because the mis-bored oil stub pipes have been identified and replaced on all Trent 900s.

RR have also re-programmed the FADEC to shut off fuel to an engine where an IP turbine overspeed is detected.

This incident is now history. The problems on the 787 are ongoing and the jury is still out on the battery 'fix'.

airsmiles

28th Jun 2013, 11:25

The problems on the 787 are ongoing and the jury is still out on the battery 'fix'.

I'm just wondering how we're going to know if that fix did it's job? Do we have to wait for a thermal runaway/battery fire and see if it's contained, or is there another way to prove the effectiveness of the fix in real-life service?

Speed of Sound

28th Jun 2013, 12:21

I'm just wondering how we're going to know if that fix did it's job?

It depend on what you mean by a 'fix'.

The previously high number of units going u/s will almost certainly reduce, as the usable voltage range has been limited to prevent overcharging and charging when unit is excessively discharged .

When the next one catches fire is literally anyone's guess although those involved will have statistical predictions worked out.

airsmiles

28th Jun 2013, 12:51

I've just noticed that the delayed 11.40am UAL125 Heathrow-Houston B787 flight is now showing as cancelled. It's a shame as this flight has had a much better few days for time-keeping. Presumably u/s but that's just supposition.

lomapaseo

28th Jun 2013, 12:52

The RR event and the 787 battery fire both have fixes approve by the regulator. That makes them equal in the eyes of the regulator (nothings perfect)

All the recent talk on this thread is about 787 incidents which have little to any significance to the same level of unsafe conditions in either earlier event.

Time to move on with correlations and look at new events with a safety weighted outlook like any other new product entering service and being adjusted to by the maintenance actions etc.

Cool Guys

28th Jun 2013, 14:51

The bigest difference between the A380 and the 787 issuses is the A380's are further in the past. The 787 issues are close in some peoples memory so the plane is under a microscope. If we get another serious incident with another plane type the 787 will be forgotten

ATC Watcher

28th Jun 2013, 15:54

the 787 will be forgotten

That I can assure you will never hapen !:E

jack11111

29th Jun 2013, 19:52

Didn't the MD11 used to be called "The Magical Electrical Airplane?"

Spooky 2

30th Jun 2013, 17:43

Never heard that term and the MD11 was nothing like the 787. Pretty much a warmed over DC10 with a few computers thrown in just to screw thing up.

EEngr

30th Jun 2013, 19:21

The RR event and the 787 battery fire both have fixes approve by the regulator. That makes them equal in the eyes of the regulator (nothings perfect)

Sadly, this is probably true. I don't thing building to regulations always results in a quality product.

But these problems are different in one significant way: For the Rolls engines we (Rolls, the regulators, airlines, etc) are fairly certain we know what the failure mode was and can make an educated judgment about the fix. But in the case of the 787 battery, Boeing admits to not knowing the root cause. Boeing and the regulators are confident that the fix will render further flights safe, within the regulatory definition of safety. And they have some theories about what is happening. But there is still a lot to be learned from in service performance of the 787 battery specifically and the 787 in general, should the root cause prove to be a systemic QA problem across a subset of their manufacturing. So we all watch, since there is still something valuable to be learned.

JanetFlight

30th Jun 2013, 22:14

Read about an Ethiopian 787 being AOG in Beijing for 3 days waiting for a new battery...:hmm:

PAXboy

1st Jul 2013, 11:38

It is possible that one of the difficulties for Boeing is that the tiniest anomaly in a system will result in no departure or an early return. Wheres on other new a/c they might take the tiny concern with them - no one is going to do that with the 787. This will make the stats look worse and be more public (above).

Boeing have only themselves to blame. If you rush the development and testing, you will have plenty of time to consider the problems during service - or not service - as the case may be.

Bidule

2nd Jul 2013, 05:16

"If you rush the development and testing"

Given the delay to get the aircraft to the first flight and into operation, I had not the feeling that the development and testing had been "rushed"....

Volume

2nd Jul 2013, 06:58

The previously high number of units going u/s will almost certainly reduce, as the usable voltage range has been limited to prevent overcharging and charging when unit is excessively discharged .On the contrary, the unizs going u/s will increase now, that the criteria for shutdown (excessive discharge) is more strict. If the number reduces, then only because ground staff is now aware of the issue.

cockney steve

2nd Jul 2013, 11:16

IF the designers have done their job properly, there will be a DIFFERENTIAL between the discharge and recharge minima.

This will ensure that the lowest discharge -level still allows safe onboard recharge...any system which doesn't, is, imho, unfit for purpose.

An electronically -controlled system should be self-monitoring and self-sufficient. It should always be available and serviceable for it's entire service-life.

The human interface is the point of "idiot input",- Very early on, we discussed the "possible" need to over-discharge cells in a real emergency...I suggested that a big, red," reserve battery emergency destructive supply" button could be placed in the cockpit, where the humans could override the system if that was needed to save the aircraft.

Perrin

2nd Jul 2013, 12:06

For all you doom and gloom guys out theres a reading light out in row 15 seat F as we write but they are safe along with all the other 787's in the air. I was working for the airline which was the first one to get A300-600's and boy did we have big issues, but the press stayed away so it all settled down as will the new state of tech 787.

:rolleyes:

falconer1

2nd Jul 2013, 14:26

IF IT WERE JUST TEETHING TROUBLES AND READING LIGHTS...

but that battery installation unfortunately is destined for "doom & gloom"...

the bird will have to be grounded again after the next major inflight batt issues, which hopefully will turn out to nothing much more than some inconvenient diversions..

But those Li Ions ( at this stage of technical (in) maturity) will have to come out and the battery system will need a major redesign before the bird will finally be safe enough for public transport...

Speed of Sound

2nd Jul 2013, 14:37

On the contrary, the unizs going u/s will increase now, that the criteria for shutdown (excessive discharge) is more strict.

Has the criteria for shutdown been made more strict?

My understanding is that the criteria has remained the same but the charging minimum voltage has been increased to prevent the battery going into shutdown mode.

The shutdown voltage is controlled inside the battery box whereas the minimum charging voltage is controlled by the charger outside the box.

Ian W

2nd Jul 2013, 15:21

SpeedofSound

That was my understanding too. The armored box brought the instatllation into line with the current RTCA recommendations for LiIon batteries and the charging levels were changed but these were by no means the only change. The specialist teams that were brought in provided fixes for all the potential problems and those that had been found. The intent being that the change-out rate would reduce as well as the failure rates.

EEngr

2nd Jul 2013, 15:55

I suggested that a big, red," reserve battery emergency destructive supply" button could be placed in the cockpit, where the humans could override the system if that was needed to save the aircraft.

Why? The danger has been averted. Even if nobody understands what is going on within the battery box, the aircraft should be safe regardless.

EEngr

2nd Jul 2013, 16:11

The specialist teams that were brought in provided fixes for all the potential problems and those that had been found. The key word here is potential. By Boeing's own admission, they don't understand the root cause yet. 'Yet' being my own addition, as I haven't heard that they will continue to look. The Big Battery Box may end up as a permanent solution.

If Boeing does discover the cause and goes back to the drawing board with an updated design, the FAA (and others) may give them a clean sheet of paper, so to speak, on battery reliability. Eventually, the battery box could go. However, if they continue as is, how much reliability data do they have to collect with the current 'probable fixes' in order to demonstrate something on the order of one event in the life of the fleet. I'm not going to do the numbers here, but my gut feeling is that this will only be provable over a significant fraction of the fleet's lifetime. Hence the perpetual battery box.

I know a few of the engineers left at Boeing. This problem goes well beyond their remaining base of expertise. Some smart battery subcontractor may find the solution and Boeing may put its stamp on it. But recertification is going to be expensive and not likely something a sub is going to finance out of the kindness off their heart.

denachtenmai

2nd Jul 2013, 16:25

Why? The danger has been averted. Even if nobody understands what is going on within the battery box, the aircraft should be safe regardless.
That "should be", in your statement EEngr, is a bit much for me:sad:
still not going to fly on one, yet.

Cows getting bigger

2nd Jul 2013, 16:26

Quote:
I suggested that a big, red," reserve battery emergency destructive supply" button could be placed in the cockpit, where the humans could override the system if that was needed to save the aircraft.
Why? The danger has been averted. Even if nobody understands what is going on within the battery box, the aircraft should be safe regardless.

You are joking, yes?

So as an analogy, I'll just run my business knowingly leaving lots of fire hazards lying around because I know my sprinkler system extinguishes fires?

Ian W

2nd Jul 2013, 20:58

EEngr
If Boeing does discover the cause and goes back to the drawing board with an updated design, the FAA (and others) may give them a clean sheet of paper, so to speak, on battery reliability. Eventually, the battery box could go.

No the battery box will stay it is part of the RTCA standard for LiIon - even the new Cessna Citation has one.

Some people will remain unconvinced, however there was a large task force of industry experts most from outside Boeing who identified all the faults that could cause problems and fixes were put in for those.

Boeing wins nothing by trying to get out of testing or by not making a complete fix,. There only needs to be a minor problem of any type and all the naysayers here will shouting about it; another 787 battery problem would be a company challenging event.

EEngr

2nd Jul 2013, 21:05

You are joking, yes? I am joking, no. This is the position that the FAA and Boeing have taken. And its not entirely unreasonable given the goal of getting the planes declared airworthy ASAP. A battery fire has now been rendered harmless. So, assuming we don't actually need the battery for any critical functions, all is well.

I'm not making a value judgment on whether this is a proper fix from a professional engineering point of view. And whether they will pursue the investigation further. That's something the company and regulators will have to weight on their conscience.

cwatters

3rd Jul 2013, 07:15

My understanding is that the criteria has remained the same but the charging minimum voltage has been increased to prevent the battery going into shutdown mode.

I don't believe that's a correct interpretation. Quite the reverse.

If Li cells are discharged too far you cannot safely recharge them. The charging minimum voltage is the voltage at which it goes into shutdown to prevent charging.

If you raise that voltage limit you make the battery safer but you increase the number of batteries that will shutdown due to over discharge.

Volume

3rd Jul 2013, 08:32

If you raise that voltage limit you make the battery safer but you increase the number of batteries that will shutdown due to over discharge.
That is exactly how I understood it as well. Make it a safer system for the cost of more shutdowns/replacement. However, having the higher shutdown voltage probably means the cells can be re-used after specific (off aircraft ?) tests have been made.

TURIN

3rd Jul 2013, 09:17

My tuppence worth.

My understanding of the refined battery system.
The min discharge level has been increased. This will shut the battery down at a higher charge, but will mean that it can still be recharged in-situ if normal power is returned to the a/c.

EG A non-APU towing scenario, on bat only. instead of, say, 30 mins of useable power from the bat, one may only have 25 mins. The bat circuit automatically shuts off power and then when the GPU is connected the battery will recharge.

I could be wrong, but this seems the most logical outcome, otherwise we are still going to be changing batteries ad-nauseum due to towing operators not monitoring the bat state.

cockney steve

3rd Jul 2013, 10:48

@TURIN:ok: Obviously the only one in class who looked and absorbed :D

Baaaack in the early days of the thread, I stated that Li-Ion .Li Poly technology, though having very high energy-density, had significant operational drawbacks.
Safe , repeat charge-discharge cycles rely on a strict care-regime.

ALL cells in a pack MUST be balanced when charging.
ALL cells should only use the "middle-portion of their capacity....IE charging should be cut off at a critical value BEFORE maximum potential cell voltage
all cells should be only partially discharged, leaving a critical ,safe-voltage residual charge.

IF THIS REGIME IS FOLLOWED, very high rate discharges are available with very high reliability. The downside being reduced available capacity*
Spontaneous combustion is not unknown, but bear in mind, these are NOT 12,000 dollar packs, NO! they're less than 100, typically, and operated by amateur enthusiasts in public places and insurers are quite willing to offer affordable cover.

Back to the core argument, which was The battery has to be able to drain completely to self-destruction in order to maintain basic instruments and braking , in event of failure of all power-generation sources.

THAT'S where the BIG RED OVERRIDE BUTTON comes in.....just like the Cirrus parachute, it's always there, you should never need it, but in that highly improbable 5h1t or bust situation, it offers a "get out of jail " card to access the last portion of the stored power in the batteries (destroying their rechargeability in the process)...but that's little price to pay for a monitoring and protection system which maintains the batteries within their safe operating-envelope and stops "unskilled" personnell taking them outside those parameters (which is the alleged reason so many were "locked-out" and had to be field-changed- 150 units across a fleet of 50??)

* The reduced capacity, in turn, bought into question the marginal advantage of using this Vs. one of the lower energy-density but safer Li. technologies.

There now, that's saved a mammoth trawl through all the dross and diamonds , hasn't it?:}

kilomikedelta

3rd Jul 2013, 22:05

EEngr;

'given the goal of getting the planes declared airworthy ASAP'

Is Boeing too big to fail?

PAXboy

4th Jul 2013, 16:34

Is Boeing too big to fail?Yes.

In crisis they will be rescued by whichever administration is in power. As the only commercial airliner manufacturer left in the USA, even before you count their military contracts. It does not matter what they state at the time: money/jobs/national security (probably all) there is no doubt that Boeing will not be allowed to fail. The 'always free market' of the USA will do what it always does and good luck to them.

EEngr

4th Jul 2013, 17:13

Is Boeing too big to fail?Yes. And McDonnell-Douglas is too well connected to fail. Hence the quick merger when McD-D lost its position in the three way fighter bid. Boeing should have picked up only the pieces it wanted in the bankrpucy sale. But think of the shareholders!

But there's also the issue of the FAA's dual charter: Maintaining the safety of aviation and promoting it. I'll give the NTSB kudos for pushing for the actual answer to the battery problem. But in the final analysis, their role is only advisory. And the FAA chose to stop short of making the Big Battery Box an interim solution and demanding further investigation.

I'm not so worried about flying on a 787 modded with the BBBox. But allowing systems to be certified by an organization that says "We don't know how this works" bothers me. Would you get on a plane if the manufacturer didn't know what keeps them up in the air? [Not that far-fetched. I've lurked in PPRuNe threads about what causes lift.:uhoh:]

Nieuport28

4th Jul 2013, 17:14

Time for a Group Hug in here, eh?

kilomikedelta

4th Jul 2013, 22:14

'But think of the shareholders.'

Silly me, I always thought there was an element of risk to being a shareholder but perhaps that's so 20th century .

Would you buy a mortgage-backed security, a collateralized debt obligation or any other derivative? No one knows how they work either but they still sell.

But back to the 787. Are their teething problems related to the current dearth of engineers and/or the surfeit of MBA's?

EEngr

4th Jul 2013, 23:59

But back to the 787. Are their teething problems related to the current dearth of engineers and/or the surfeit of MBA's?

And there lies a really important question. Having an open-ended investigation into batteries, electrical panels, loose bolts, etc. might lead regulators to a root cause that Boeing won't like. And perhaps an FAA more actively involved with the certification and QA processes.

Brian Abraham

5th Jul 2013, 04:55

Are their teething problems related to the current dearth of engineers and/or the surfeit of MBA's?MBAs in Chicago telling engineers in Seattle how to do business?

Boeing Corporate Offices. 100 North Riverside Chicago, Illinois 60606.

What aircraft, or even bits of Boeings get built in Chicago? Head office too far from the coal face?

ATC Watcher

5th Jul 2013, 05:43

MBAs in Chicago telling engineers in Seattle how to do business?
Isn't always the case ? in almost any business nowadays ?
Was reading an article a few days back how the new CEO from a well off multinational is selling off the assets ( buildings, profitable subsidiaries, etc..) to raise capital /pay dividends/ boost share value under his chairmanship. All this to raise his profile, in order to move to the next company with a good CV record, and to do probably the same again there.
Who's in those spheres are interested about the products actually manufactured ?

Kiskaloo

10th Jul 2013, 03:14

EEngr noted:
But allowing systems to be certified by an organization that says "We don't know how this works" bothers me.

The regulatory agencies - be they the American FAA, European EASA, Japanese JAA, or whomever - don't have the knowledge that the OEMs (Boeing, Airbus, etc.) have which is why they are dependent on the OEMs to assist them in the certification process. And the OEMs themselves depends on the system sub-contractors to assist them in the certification process. Boeing and Airbus are not experts in Li-Ion batteries, so both were assisted by the subs developing those batteries to develop the certification and testing process.

And this practice is not just in commercial aerospace. Many industries depend on the assistance of those being certified during the certification process.

Having an open-ended investigation into batteries, electrical panels, loose bolts, etc. might lead regulators to a root cause that Boeing won't like.

Why wouldn't Boeing like the identification of the root cause? Knowing how and why something happens is an important step in determining how to prevent it from happening again.

EEngr

10th Jul 2013, 14:27

Why wouldn't Boeing like the identification of the root cause?Because that root cause might be due to Boeing's offloading too much systems design and manufacturing responsibility onto subcontractors. And the fix might reverse Boeing Corporate's current policies in this area.

I was working there in the 1990s when the FAA uncovered major QA problems with aircraft subsystems. The FAA finding and remedy (which I was involved with) was to clean up the functional testing process. And that involved holding design engineering's feet to the fire to take their (FAR mandated) responsibility for overseeing that testing seriously. Boeing management screamed like a stuck pig, but made the required process changes. It was either that or lose their manufacturing certificate. The changes interfered with Boeing's strategy to push engineering tasks out to subcontractors. But only for a while. By the time I left, they were back on track outsourcing everything.

If current problems can be tracked back to a lack of end-to-end oversight from design engineering through to manufacturing and quality control, Boeing might be stuck with some major reorganization.

kilomikedelta

10th Jul 2013, 18:50

But MBA programmes make one a deeper and more comprehensive thinker (so their ads say). Isn't that why the ratio of engineers who get MBA's to MBA's who go on to get engineering degrees is so lopsided?

LASJayhawk

11th Jul 2013, 02:16

I guess nobody remembers the good old days. NiCads had the same kind of problems in the beginning, going into thermal runaway.

If we applied the same logic, we would still be flying unpressurized turboprops and radials, after all that De Havilland Comet didn't work out too well at first.

Momoe

11th Jul 2013, 13:38

In the 'Good old days', the manufacturers bottomed out the cause of the problem and then carried on.

Following the Comet crashes, DH built a fuselage sized tank and ran endless pressurisation cycles, when the inevitable happened they gained an understanding of the cause.

Boeing tweaked some software parameters on the charging algorithms, built a steel box round the battery and carried on: Root cause of the problem still unknown.

'Good old days' not looking too shabby now are they?

Volume

11th Jul 2013, 18:55

Japanese JAAJAA has been the former European one... The Japanese is called JCAB (http://www.mlit.go.jp/koku/english/01_introduction/) ;)

Pinkman

11th Jul 2013, 19:37

The changes interfered with Boeing's strategy to push engineering tasks out to subcontractors. But only for a while. By the time I left, they were back on track outsourcing everything..

This would be like the alleged findings of their audit of the contractor producing the bearstraps for the 737NG as described in "on a wing and a prayer"?

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with outsourcing. But there is a corollary and that is that some of the costs that you save get eaten up by the increased inspection and audit requirements of subcontractor parts, services, materials supply chain and QA. There is no free lunch.

kilomikedelta

11th Jul 2013, 22:06

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with outsourcing. But there is a corollary and that is that some of the costs that you save get eaten up by the increased inspection and audit requirements of subcontractor parts, services, materials supply chain and QA. There is no free lunch.

You are correct about the no free lunch but what about when the costs exceed the savings? Boeing's managers did the latest Harvard Business Review wheeze about outsourcing and wound up with how many years of delay for a first flight (viz. wrong fasteners, outsourced parts that don't fit together etc.)?

MBA's don't know their anal sphincter from page four when it comes to engineering (especially those whose first degree was in engineering and sold out).

An engineer's iron ring (in Canada) is a constant reminder to graduates of their responsibility to the public.

An MBA's focus is compensation, career path and promises of shareholder value. They have no professional body to ensure any responsibility to anything.

When you reject professionalism, there's very little left for future generations.

LASJayhawk

11th Jul 2013, 22:07

IIRC: 2 comets were lost at takeoff DeH introduced fixes.
They lost 2 more in flight and introduced fixes for anything they could think of. After the 3rd in flight hull loss, they tried the water tank. ( I might have one to many in there??)

Even though this looks like a "best guess" kind of fix, it includes measures to prevent hull loss in the event of another failure. So it will either:
1) not happen again
2) happen again to a random a/c
3) happen again to the same a/c

If 3 happens, it will turn out to be something "goofy" like bad bonding in the HF radio system or antenna.

my 2 cents, and overpriced at that! :)

inetdog

11th Jul 2013, 22:14

Momoe:
In the 'Good old days', the manufacturers bottomed out the cause of the problem and then carried on.

Following the Comet crashes, DH built a fuselage sized tank and ran endless pressurisation cycles, when the inevitable happened they gained an understanding of the cause.

Boeing tweaked some software parameters on the charging algorithms, built a steel box round the battery and carried on: Root cause of the problem still unknown.

'Good old days' not looking too shabby now are they?
So DH built a single test tank and waited a long time. Boeing has installed a test tank in each plane in the fleet. Sounds more efficient, right? :rolleyes:

TURIN

11th Jul 2013, 22:31

So DH built a single test tank and waited a long time. Boeing has installed a test tank in each plane in the fleet. Sounds more efficient, right?

Except the Comet was grounded until they understood the failure mode(s) and only flew again after major modifications.

LASJayhawk

11th Jul 2013, 23:33

AFAIK:
They lost 2 hulls do to "pilot error" and they made some mods.

They lost 1 hull when the wings came off and made some mods ( artificial feel aka Arthur Q)

They then lost 3 more hulls to inflight breakup THEN grounded the fleet.

Tough trying something new in aviation, isn't it.

RCav8or

12th Jul 2013, 00:14

"Except the Comet was grounded until they understood the failure mode(s) and only flew again after major modifications."

After losing three planes and all on board, I would certainly hope so:ugh:
Do you really think the 787 battery problem can be compared to the loss of three Comets and all on board? Really now:=

Heathrow Harry

12th Jul 2013, 08:06

not yet...................

halfmanhalfbiscuit

12th Jul 2013, 08:21

An MBA's focus is compensation, career path and promises of shareholder value. They have no professional body to ensure any responsibility to anything.

That is true. Ultimately the CEO is the accountable manager for regulatory/safety/quality. Something many often don't realise.

Lon More

12th Jul 2013, 15:11

Seem to be quite a few Boeing shareholders posting here, ;)

EEngr

13th Jul 2013, 02:37

Seem to be quite a few Boeing shareholders posting here, http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gifWrong icon. Try :{

Lon More

13th Jul 2013, 04:54

RCav8or posted "Except the Comet was grounded until they understood the failure mode(s) and only flew again after major modifications."

After losing three planes and all on board, I would certainly hope so
Do you really think the 787 battery problem can be compared to the loss of three Comets and all on board? Really now

Google "B737 rudder reversal" for a triumph of profits over safety

LASJayhawk

14th Jul 2013, 02:38

Who did the electrical on 787?

It wasn't Lucas was it? :eek:

kilomikedelta

14th Jul 2013, 23:39

LASJhawk;

It wasn't Lucas was it?

Good one!

It appears you are close to the generation who experienced the wonders of Lucas 'engineering'.

Lucas now is owned by the Blackstone Group whose principals we all know are at the cutting edge of electrical engineering.

No, Lucas didn't do the 787 electrical design. It was outsourced by Boeing to Thales who outsourced it to Securaplane who are owned by Meggitt who are owned by the 3i group. I've probably missed a number of corporate intermediaries but the corporate lawyers and MBA's I'm sure were orgasmic about their fees in arranging all that because it created the epitome of engineering excellence.

No matter, it will take decades of lawsuits to sort out who screwed up and by then we will all be dead or demented.

Boeing may not survive but their law firms will.

slacktide

15th Jul 2013, 00:39

Who did the electrical on 787?

It wasn't Lucas was it? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif

No, but Lucas did do the FADEC computer for the Trent 1000.

Aero Engine Controls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Engine_Controls#History)

cockney steve

15th Jul 2013, 10:03

AFAIK, Lucas went T.U. ...........the bones became Delphi...went T.U again...I don't think that anything is made by "lucas"in the UK.
anyone who has had the misfotune to own a diesel with a Delphi injector-pump,will not need any further info.
Maybe the Lucas Aerospace division was /is an independent company.

riches to rags in less than40 years.

Signs are, Boeing is being raped in the same fashion.

UAVop

15th Jul 2013, 22:19

Well, this is a new one..
the manufacturer of the beacon, Honeywell, has been brought into the mix on the Ethiopian 787 fire.

"A key supplier on Boeing Co.’s 787 Dreamliner passenger jet has confirmed it has joined the ongoing investigation into a fire that broke out last week on an Ethiopian Airlines aircraft parked at London’s Heathrow Airport.

Honeywell International Inc. makes the plane’s emergency locator transmitter, which is a device installed on all commercial airplanes. Known as an ELT, it transmits signals in an emergency. So if a plane is involved in a crash, the transmitter will alert search parties to its location."

Wouldnt that be poetic? :eek:

LASJayhawk

15th Jul 2013, 22:44

UAVop Maybe the investigators look to PPRuNe for ideas :O

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/518971-ethiopean-787-fire-heathrow-3.html#post7937429

UAVop

23rd Jul 2013, 19:30

Rain in the plane being looked at as cause for beacon fire and other electrical problems...

HIGHER HUMIDITY
While the UK report focused on the beacon made by U.S. conglomerate Honeywell, aviation experts said there could also be issues with the 787's higher humidity or other environmental factors. Water can conduct electricity, so high moisture levels could increase the likelihood of short circuits.
"The investigators are looking at everything, humidity, condensation and ... how things are installed. It's a comprehensive effort," said one industry source.
Boeing's new plane has a relatively high humidity, which helps keeps passengers more comfortable, and investigators are now looking at whether there is enough insulation to prevent moisture from condensing and short circuiting systems such as the beacon, said the source, who was not authorized to speak publicly.
A source close to Boeing, speaking on condition that he not be named, said the 787 may need better isolation of electrical components from the plane's high humidity, something industry people refer to as "rain in the plane."
Analysts said they were watching for further developments.

syseng68k

23rd Jul 2013, 21:17

In fact, water, especially distilled water resulting from "rain", is a very poor conductor. The elt runs at low voltages as well and the chance of any serious current flowing from condensate are negligable.

If you have a Fluke or similar multimeter, try measuring the resistance of a glass of boiled water from the kettle, say with the probes at a cm spacing, to get an idea.

Again, all this smells of misinformation, un-named sources being given publicity which is then spouted by the media as possible cause, may be just a smoke screen to hide the real problem.

FX: That;'s ok, it was the coffee maker; no, forgot, no ac power; that won't wash; Ok, elt will do for now. Problem solved...

dancingdog777

24th Jul 2013, 20:13

Excuse me butting in here but I understand the ELT runs off a lithium battery?

We are expected to provide a recycling point for lithium batteries (in our retail shop) and the safety advise even on used lithium batteries is that both ends - +ve and -ve - must be covered with insulating tape.

All that to say, lithium batteries need careful handling, so I wonder if that's being taken into consideration by the maintenance crews?

Just saying......!

TURIN

24th Jul 2013, 20:22

Dancingdog.
You have read this thread...haven't you? :hmm:

Eclectic

25th Jul 2013, 19:21

There is an Air India 787 oven smoke report on the social media.
https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/360478149814910977

fenland787

25th Jul 2013, 19:31

Dreamliners operated by Air India experienced smoke from overheated oven according to airline.Whereas any other aircraft, being made of aluminum would not have done of course, their ovens would know better than to smoke when overheated? :ugh:

glad rag

25th Jul 2013, 21:56

They make the ovens of cf? As well?

ATC Watcher

9th Jan 2014, 05:40

From ATN news this morning :
NTSB PROVIDES UPDATE ON BOEING 787 BATTERY FIRE INVESTIGATION
Source: NTSB
08/01/2014
The investigative work into the Jan. 7, 2013, fire aboard a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 at Logan International Airport in Boston, is estimated to be completed by the end of March, the National Transportation Safety Board said today. The analytical and report writing phase of the investigation will follow the completion of the investigative activities. The final report is expected to be presented to the Board at a public meeting in Washington in the fall.

Members of the investigative team have been conducting work in the United States, Japan, France, and Taiwan. As the investigation has progressed, the NTSB has been working closely with Boeing, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Japan Transport Safety Bureau, the French BEA, and technical advisors from Japan and France.

Some of the investigative activities include:

- Completed disassembly and documentation of the individual cells of the incident battery.

- Completed examinations of exemplar batteries and battery cells for baseline reference and comparison to the incident battery. These examinations were conducted at NTSB and independent laboratories and included computed tomography scans, non-destructive soft short testing, and destructive evaluation and analysis of the batteries and cells.

- Awarded a contract to Underwriter’s Laboratories to assist the NTSB in defining and performing system-level tests of the Boeing 787 battery and charging system. The testing includes characterization of the thermal and electrochemical properties of the battery and oscillatory testing and is expected to be completed in February.

- Radiographic studies, which included over 200,000 CT scan images, were conducted to examine and document the internal configuration of individual cells from the incident and exemplar batteries.

- Conducted interviews with FAA, Boeing, Thales, and GS Yuasa personnel to review and document key steps, personnel roles and responsibilities, data and information flow, design artifacts, and approvals in the certification process for the battery and charging system.

- Evaluated and documented the process for the battery system safety assessment, including a review of the supporting tests and analysis performed and the safety analysis standards relevant for lithium-ion batteries.

- Conducted on-site survey of battery manufacturing facility in Japan including a review of design, engineering, and production documentation, as well as manufacturing processes, procedures, and training for personnel involved in the manufacture of the battery.

The date of the Board meeting at which the findings of the investigation will be released, including the probable cause of the battery fire, will be announced later in the year.

All of the information and resources the NTSB has released for this investigation can be accessed from the following page: Accident Investigations - Boeing 787 (http://go.usa.gov/4K4J).

tubby linton

14th Jan 2014, 16:36

JAL have been having more problems with batteries.

(Reuters) - Japan (http://www.reuters.com/places/japan) Airlines said it temporarily grounded one of its 787 Dreamliners on Tuesday after white smoke was spotted outside the plane, warning lights in the cockpit indicated possible faults with the main battery and charger, and one battery cell appeared to be leaking.
Boeing Co said it was "aware of the 787 issue that occurred Tuesday afternoon at Narita, which appears to have involved the venting of a single battery cell. "
The incident comes nearly a year to the day after Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways grounded their 787 fleets after two 787 batteries overheated on two different planes in less than two weeks.
Global regulators grounded the worldwide fleet on January 16, 2013. The planes remained grounded for more than three months while Boeing redesigned the battery, charger and containment system to ensure battery fires would not put the airplane at risk. The cause of the battery problems has not been determined.
On Tuesday, Japan Airlines said maintenance engineers who were in the cockpit saw white smoke from the cockpit. When they went outside the aircraft the smoke had dispersed.
On returning to the cockpit the engineers found warning lights indicating possible faults with the main battery and charger. When checking the battery they found one of the eight cells to be active with a liquid coming out.
The plane, due to depart from Tokyo Narita airport for Bangkok, was taken out of service and the 158 passengers due to board the plane were put aboard a separate 787, JAL said.

DavidCummings

14th Jan 2014, 19:25

Rumours have reached me in regards to a Dreamliner from JAL undergoing maintenance has suffered from a Thermal battery issue today. Details are coming through slowly but it appears the containment systems have worked I am trying my upmost to find out which aircraft it is

Yancey Slide

14th Jan 2014, 20:27

Another battery incident troubles Boeing's 787 Dreamliner - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/travel/787-dreamliner/index.html?hpt=hp_t2) as well

OntimeexceptACARS

14th Jan 2014, 22:48

There's an update on AvHerald, JA822J is the ship.

ManaAdaSystem

14th Jan 2014, 23:21

So the battery containment system works, but the batteries keep failing even after Boeing introduced a higher standard of batteries.
I am really happy I'm not flying this wonderbird. And there is no way you will see me as a passenger on one.
Never mind the "made in China" spoilers cracking, but anything close to a fire on an aircraft scares me to death.

The Dominican

14th Jan 2014, 23:51

I love how pilots talk out their ass about being happy not to be flying this or that, and if the opportunity presents itself they don't walk towards it, they run...!:rolleyes:

ATC Watcher

15th Jan 2014, 05:57

Yes Dominican, old human nature .....:E

On the other hand ,looking at the cnn link provided by Yancey Slide , I initially thought looking at the top photo of the Battery vent , that the painted text was a humorous photoshop image, but from the legend underneath it would seem it is real.
Good choice of words to induce confidence !

ManaAdaSystem

15th Jan 2014, 05:57

Speaking for yourself, Dominican?

I need to have some degree of faith in the equipment I operate, so no, you will not see me running towards a 787.

ATC Watcher

15th Jan 2014, 07:22

The sequence of events is interesting

Oops thanks mana, read too fast, post deleted .

ManaAdaSystem

15th Jan 2014, 07:27

Not IN the cockpit. Observed FROM the cockpit.

joy ride

15th Jan 2014, 07:35

From the sound of it the containment worked exactly as intended. This is fairly reassuring but I would be happier if Boeing and its suppliers fully understood what caused the problems and found a genuine solution. As things stand I think this problem could recur occasionally, which was exactly what I thought when they revealed the Containment System last year.

Romulus

15th Jan 2014, 08:01

On Tuesday, Japan Airlines said maintenance engineers who were in the cockpit saw white smoke from the cockpit. When they went outside the aircraft the smoke had dispersed. On returning to the cockpit the engineers found warning lights indicating possible faults with the main battery and charger.

The sequence of events is interesting:
Observable smoke
The passing of some seconds (at least), during which the smoke clears
Then the dashboard lights up with fault indicators.
It's good that the dash did light up, but the engineers still noticed the problem before the aircraft's own systems did. Good to see the engineers had their eyes open and paying attention to detail.

Need to be a bit pedantic here, because that's not quite what it says MSB.

There is no indication of when the dashboard lights lit up, only when the engineers noticed them.

Torquelink

15th Jan 2014, 10:04

So is this to become the new norm now?

Are there are such compelling reasons to retain these batteries that, henceforth, we will accept that one catching fire occasionally is as much a part of standard ops as an oil leak or worn tyre? The occasional fire on board a longhaul aircraft - properly contained of course - is just a routine incident and we just change out the battery and carry on?

If so, it's truly bizarre.

Fostex

15th Jan 2014, 10:32

Maybe bleed air isn't such a bad idea afterall!

Kerosene Kraut

15th Jan 2014, 12:08

Biggest and earliest operators.

ironbutt57

15th Jan 2014, 12:16

Been wondering the same thing Gobona...

Self Loading Freight

15th Jan 2014, 12:33

The NTSB update is interesting, especially in juxtaposition with this latest lively lithium incident. An announcement that "we'll be wrapping up the data gathering in March, and then get on with writing the report" must mean "and we've not found any urgent safety action points yet" - assuming that if the smoking gun had been found, some more timely interim advisory would have been issued.

Meanwhile, the bleeders continue to get toasty.

From which, one deduces:

1. The NTSB still doesn't know the ultimate cause of the failures
2. The stated March deadline is now likely to be extended
3. They're happy that the Boeing containment fix is adequate to ensure a/c safety
4. We've still got no idea when the no smoking rule for Dreamliners is likely to be enforced

The saga drags on...

Ian W

15th Jan 2014, 14:07

Any reason why only the Japanese aircraft seem to be suffering? Is there something they're doing which none of the others are doing? Or just an unhappy coincidence?

It was one of the questions that was asked way back down in the thread. Certainly, the 787 has been flying in increasing numbers and so far the other operators have not had an issue with the batteries (other items yes).

One would hope that the audit trail and archived data on each battery would show if anything unexpected was being done to/with the battery due to different procedures.

fenland787

15th Jan 2014, 14:22

I would expect that as part of the battery system redesign a lot more battery data is being logged so perhaps this latest incident will give more clues as to the root cause of the cell failure.

llondel

15th Jan 2014, 15:05

If you can't provide a good explanation for all the observed failures then you haven't fixed the problem and it will come back to bite you in the future. This is a general rule of thumb, not just applicable to the batteries.

Porrohman

15th Jan 2014, 15:50

Last March, in the comments section of an article in Aviation Week was the following comment;
Bayanist
1:55 PM on 3/29/2013
I guarantee that the 787 problem is not with the battery technology but with the assumption that it is possible to charge as many as 8 cells in series without problems. The weakest cell WILL reverse polarity and appear as a short after the fact. This is true for any battery technology. I have done it with diehard lead acid batteries. To be safe each cell must be charged individually. Otherwise it is similar to pushing a chain. Unless each link is PERFECTLY aligned there will not be success. Unless each cell is PERFECTLY matched there will not be success. Since this is clearly impossible in this universe there will be future problems unless my warning is heeded. Time will prove me correct, Of that I am certain. Watch and see!
Source; 787 ETOPS Threat Dismissed As Speculation (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_03_29_2013_p0-564390.xml)

I'm not sure whether the battery redesign changed this aspect or not. If it didn't then perhaps this is the cause of the issue?

tdracer

15th Jan 2014, 15:57

There may actually be some good news here.
The previous events involved complete meltdowns of the batteries - leaving little evidence of the original failure mode.

This failure was isolated to a single cell with limited damage. With the battery largely intact it may be possible to determine the elusive root cause.

repariit

15th Jan 2014, 16:11

Bayanist
1:55 PM on 3/29/2013
I guarantee that the 787 problem is not with the battery technology but with the assumption that it is possible to charge as many as 8 cells in series without problems. The weakest cell WILL reverse polarity and appear as a short after the fact. This is true for any battery technology. I have done it with diehard lead acid batteries. To be safe each cell must be charged individually. Otherwise it is similar to pushing a chain. Unless each link is PERFECTLY aligned there will not be success. Unless each cell is PERFECTLY matched there will not be success. Since this is clearly impossible in this universe there will be future problems unless my warning is heeded. Time will prove me correct, Of that I am certain. Watch and see! I do not doubt that this is true, but can anyone explain why we have not heard of such problems with lead acid or NiCad systems? There are scads of 24 volt systems of all battery types in aircraft, marine, and ground transportation equipment, all of them having 12 cells in series.

no-hoper

15th Jan 2014, 16:30

Aha.What about 20 cells in series ?

Lemain

15th Jan 2014, 16:33

I guarantee that the 787 problem is not with the battery technology but with the assumption that it is possible to charge as many as 8 cells in series without problems. The weakest cell WILL reverse polarity and appear as a short after the fact. This is true for any battery technology.It's bollocks, actually, as everyone with a car knows. Where the battery technology is very sensitive to reverse polarity a shunt diode is placed across the cell. Anyway none of this is an acceptable reason for fires and fumes. Back in the '70s during an industrial work experience period I used to test packs of NiCds for military (airborne guided weapons) applications. We had to temperature cycle and fully charge the batteries several times from +100C to -55C. In several months in the lab/production I never heard of smoke or flames....quite a few didn't meet performance criteria after a couple cycles, which is why we cycled but no dangerous stuff. Most rechargeable cells are not so very sensitive and will tolerate a reverse polarity provided the power dissipated is not beyond certain limits.