787 problems

[Frogman1484]

Some MIT professor thinks that the fix could delay the 787 by a year.

MIT Professor: Battery Fix Could Ground 787 Until 2014 - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2013/01/27/mit-professor-battery-fix-could-ground-787-until-2014/)

[HKJunkie]

I was in Seattle last week and the local radio shows trooped out several experts (ex FAA, NTSB, aviation observers etc) who essentially stated that if a fix is a redesign for a new battery installation, it could be "as much as a year" grounding

[Arfur Dent]

Interesting that these problems didn't show up in "over 1000 hours of testing".

[crwkunt roll]

I guess they do occasionally fly into the FH don't they?

[cxorcist]

Looks like Boeing pulled a first rate cock-up choosing an unsafe battery architecture and then pretending the problems were manageable and "not flight safety" risks. I have to think there are probably engineers at Boeing who will eventually come forward as whistle-blowers if it turns out they had financially driven time pressures applied to their work. This will be especially true if Boeing tries to hang a few of them as fall guys.

Ironically, CX will probably get a screaming deal on 787-10s due to this situation.

[Frogman1484]

They apparently knew about the problems sometime last year.
:ugh:

[SubsonicMortal]

Have a look at this cover up:

People & Power - On a wing and a prayer - YouTube

[cxorcist]

What a stupid piece! By AlJazeera no less. The 737NG has one of the best safety records in aviation. It also has dispatch reliability far exceeding its competition. Nothing a disgruntled employee says can change that.

[SubsonicMortal]

@cxorcist; you're comparing a 737 with over 76 million flights against its name with it's "competition" (I'm assuming you are referring to the A320 series) that only has 6 million flights so far. OF COURSE the dispatch reliability is going to be higher. Each to his own opinion but you can't ignore the fact that the "disgruntled employees" were on to something. Their findings were backed by a number of experts that were interviewed.

BTW, look at the statistics up to 2004 on AirDisaster.Com: Statistics (http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/)

Only 4 x A320 series events in which passengers were fatally injured against 47 for the 737 series...

[Steve the Pirate]

Only 4 x A320 series events in which passengers were fatally injured against 47 for the 737 series...

I like a good Boeing bashing as much as the next guy (cxorcist excluded). However, your link shows is that there is (or was in 2004) little statistical difference between the 737 series and the A320 series and, if I'm reading the table correctly, the 737 is (or was then) safer than the A320.

STP

[FlexibleResponse]

And of course the B737 fuselage crown structural failures that led to a series of Emergency Airworthiness Directives had nothing to do with manufacturing errors and quality assurance either... ;-)

[SubsonicMortal]

@STP; I suppose if you look at the ranking table the 737 earned two spots better than the 320 but again, the 737 up to 2004 had flown 76 million flights vs. the 6 million for the 320. Rates of 0.67 vs. 0.62 for Airbus and Boeing respectively. Boeing did slightly better but their flights included the old generation 737 which was not exposed to the flawed elements discussed in the documentary.

[Frogman1484]

Boeing 787 grounding persists; Airbus comfortable with A350 batteries

By Aaron Karp | February 1, 2013

0
MORE SHARING SERVICESSHARE
EMAIL
PRINT
The worldwide grounding of the Boeing 787, initiated Jan. 16, shows no sign of being lifted.

Meanwhile, Airbus said it could change plans to use lithium ion batteries on the A350 if necessary, though it remains comfortable with using the technology on the aircraft set to enter service in the second half of 2014.

Boeing chairman, president and CEO Jim McNerney, speaking this week during a conference call with analysts and reporters, declined to discuss what actions will have to be taken to get the 787 back in service. “I don’t want to pre-judge what form of entry into service will be acceptable [to US FAA],” he said. “We all want to understand root cause [of the Japan Airlines (JAL) and All Nippon Airways (ANA) 787 lithium ion battery events] and that’s what we’re focused on.”

Speaking to reporters this week in France, Airbus president and CEO Fabrice Brégier said the company has no intention at this time to move away from using lithium ion batteries on the A350, according to Reuters. (There are lithium ion batteries on A380s, but they are used on a limited basis—to power the aircraft’s emergency lighting system. The A350, like the 787, would use the high-powered batteries on a more extensive, regular basis.)

“We studied the integration of these batteries on the A350 very carefully,” Brégier said, according to Reuters. “I am very relaxed about this.” He added that Airbus believes it has “resolved” any safety concerns related to using lithium ion batteries on the A350.

However, according to Reuters, he said, “Nothing prevents us from going back to a classical plan that we have been studying in parallel … If this design has to evolve, we have the time to do that. If it has to change in a more drastic way because the authorities reach the conclusion that the [battery] technology is not mature, then we have all the time we need to do this on the A350 before first delivery in the second half of 2014.”

McNerney said a “comprehensive root cause analysis and related series of technical analyses” are ongoing by Boeing, FAA, the US National Transportation Safety Board and the Japan Transport Safety Board to determine what happened on the JAL and ANA 787s. “I am confident [these analyses] will identify the root cause of these incidents,” he said.

McNerney emphasized the 787 grounding is a “compartmentalized issue” that is not detracting from other Boeing commercial aircraft programs.