Another 787 electrical/smoke incident (on ground)
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bubbers44:
Probably so. But in the meantime I would take a pass on an ETOPS trip on the bird.
The 787 will be fine once they work out a few problems. Most new models go through a growing process.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was the final ROD? It didn't look THAT bad ... not bad enough for the whole freaking tail section to drop on the ground anyway 
As for the 787 I'm not as confident as some. Watch this space I'd suggest.
As for the 787 I'm not as confident as some. Watch this space I'd suggest.
Although one has to say that size matters.
I'm not sure the Airbus battery for emergency lighting is a whopping 70lbs self ignition capable exlposive device.
To be functioning these things have to be fully charged. Unfortunately that is exactly the regime where these things are really dangerous.
And the usual way to blow them up is:
charging.
And guess what. That is what has to happen to them regularly per design and use case.
And all that in a 'plastics' airframe....
I will not knowingly board an airliner with a 70 lbs Lithium Ion or polymer battery.
why don't they use safe LiFe (-polymer or phosphate) batteries???
They are not that much less weight efficient yet much safer.
It appears the next fuel leak has been found on a 787. As reported by the Austrian ORF, the JAL aircraft that had shown one fuel leak at KBOS last tuesday has come up with another leak at RJAA today.
It will be a while until I confidently board one of those aircraft.
It will be a while until I confidently board one of those aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed the 787 had another leak discover in Japan
The fuel leak came from a fuel nozzle on the left wing that is used to remove fuel, a JAL spokeswoman says.
Open valve again caused fuel leak during checks on 787 that leaked fuel on BOS last week, but a different valve, says JAL. Cause unknown.
The fuel leak came from a fuel nozzle on the left wing that is used to remove fuel, a JAL spokeswoman says.
Open valve again caused fuel leak during checks on 787 that leaked fuel on BOS last week, but a different valve, says JAL. Cause unknown.
Last edited by 1stspotter; 13th Jan 2013 at 14:21.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was the final ROD? It didn't look THAT bad ... not bad enough for the whole freaking tail section to drop on the ground anyway 
The final sink rate of the DC9-80 discussed above was 12 FPS.
It is worth noting that the MD-80 hard landings encountered over the 33 years following this test flight did not have such structural failures. Although the flight test plan did not call for such sink rate, the result was improvements that probably prevented loss of aircraft and saved lives during the service history of this type.
If the outcome of the FAA review deems Lithium-Ion batteries to be too hazardous for transport aircraft applications, then AB may also have a problem. L-Ion batteries are used to power emergency lighting on the A380 and AB also plans to use them on the A350.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: CGN, EDDK
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having worked on aircraft built by Boeing, Airbus and Douglas for many years, IMO the problem with Boeing is not the design, which is generally solid, but shoddy workmanship and possibly a lack of quality control with details. E.g. crossthreaded Cannon plugs under the wing-to-body fairing on a brandnew 737NG, in a location which hasn´t been touched since the plane left the factory and which gave us a lot of trouble with the engine controls. Or pins, which seemed to have been crimped on using waterpump pliers. Or badly routed wires, rubbing against structure.
I know that boeing is notorious with it´s hire-and-fire policies, especially where low skilled (trained just for one job) assembly line workers are concerned, so they might not get the best motivated and skilled workers.
On the other hand we once had a brand new A300-600, which gave us lots of problems with the fuel quantity system. We finally opned the wings and took about a bucket full of swarf (shavings and drilled off rivet heads from manufacturing of the wing structure) out of the wing. They obviously didn´t clean the inside of the wing in Filton.
I know that boeing is notorious with it´s hire-and-fire policies, especially where low skilled (trained just for one job) assembly line workers are concerned, so they might not get the best motivated and skilled workers.
On the other hand we once had a brand new A300-600, which gave us lots of problems with the fuel quantity system. We finally opned the wings and took about a bucket full of swarf (shavings and drilled off rivet heads from manufacturing of the wing structure) out of the wing. They obviously didn´t clean the inside of the wing in Filton.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that rather than deny the possibility of failure, more effort should have gone into establishing a better failure mode. Venting the contents of an Li-ion battery pack into the electronics bay just doesn't seem like the best solution. Perhaps encasing the battery and equipping that case with a pressure/temperature device that vents to the outside of the aircraft? Or perhaps liquid immersion like the packs used in automobiles (better cell-to-cell thermal distribution would allow for earlier detection of a fault and shutdown before a runaway condition develops)? I still think the root cause is (was) an issue with the charging system, but regardless of what it is ultimately found to be, the failure mode for the system as a whole leaves me a bit concerned.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From another website but so appropriate at this hour:
BREAKING NEWS (Chicago IL): Dreamliner passenger reading light fails at Seat 22B during routine flight. FAA certification team enroute. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says aircraft "safest reading environment in airline service today". Boeing to provide loaner Kindle Fire (the one with the backlighting) to affected passenger; replacement lightbulb to be flown in on 747-8 Intercontinental. Boeing stock down 1/8 in continuing turbulence.
BREAKING NEWS (Chicago IL): Dreamliner passenger reading light fails at Seat 22B during routine flight. FAA certification team enroute. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says aircraft "safest reading environment in airline service today". Boeing to provide loaner Kindle Fire (the one with the backlighting) to affected passenger; replacement lightbulb to be flown in on 747-8 Intercontinental. Boeing stock down 1/8 in continuing turbulence.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the video showed the end of the landing, you would see that the fuselage forward of the wing was also broken open.
The final sink rate of the DC9-80 discussed above was 12 FPS.
It is worth noting that the MD-80 hard landings encountered over the 33 years following this test flight did not have such structural failures. Although the flight test plan did not call for such sink rate, the result was improvements that probably prevented loss of aircraft and saved lives during the service history of this type.
The final sink rate of the DC9-80 discussed above was 12 FPS.
It is worth noting that the MD-80 hard landings encountered over the 33 years following this test flight did not have such structural failures. Although the flight test plan did not call for such sink rate, the result was improvements that probably prevented loss of aircraft and saved lives during the service history of this type.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, typical airliner's undercarriage is rated to withstand about 600 fpm descent rate (or about 10 fps). but this doesn't guarantee that after such landing the aircraft will be able to return to service right away, often expensive repairs may be required. And 600 fpm is less than a typical descent rate during final approach, so if you don't flare you pretty much are guaranteeing loss of the hull.
Last edited by olasek; 13th Jan 2013 at 20:49.
I will not knowingly board an airliner with a 70 lbs Lithium Ion or polymer battery.
So, how about a short range big selling jet that is supposed to have ring frames fabricated by CNC which were being produced by using hammers and mark one eyeball? Recall that the OEM's QA officers that reported this to the OEM were constructively dismissed, and about 20% of this fleet operate under the auspices of the leading FAA oops sorry, er, "NAA..."
as being fit for service? After you have removed all the aircraft types that have had issues in introduction... gong to be doing a lot of walking.Now, OTOH, your concern on LI batteries has some merit. Personally, not too keen on them, blew the nose off a MIL jet I was flying once with a BTR, lots of metalwork and a new engine needed, so cannot say that I am a fan of these. ll systems have risks, time will tell.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, typical airliner's undercarriage is rated to withstand about 600 fpm descent rate (or about 10 fps). but this doesn't guarantee that after such landing the aircraft will be able to return to service right away, often expensive repairs may be required. And 600 fpm is less than a typical descent rate during final approach, so if you don't flare you pretty much are guaranteeing loss of the hull.
Even though my comment was maybe a bit over the top, I have personally seen 1lbs proper brand LiPo cells go off which were charged with a proper brand charger. It is quite the fireworks. And there wasn't any reason to expect it. Went suddenly boom during charging. Took 4 litres of water to put it out. Water works fine against urban myths btw. I wouldn't try it in a closed room though, it creates a bit of poisonous acid.
From all what I've seen Li Ion is pretty much identical in behaviour.
70 times the size of this fire I do not want to imagine. And especially not inaccessibly in a carbon fiber tube at 35kft. These cells have self ignition capability once charged beyond a certain level. Be it due to a failure in the charger or an uncaught manufaturing defect in a cell or a pre- existing damage due to handling or temperature exposure. (There is just a very thin plastic foil separating the layers - you damage the foil at any place - you light up your place big time).
You get the point. Too many variables which are hard to control and in case of failure there's not much of a mitigation plan.
Just good ol' luck might save your day.
And all that while there is an alternative with only limited drawbacks.
Just one word: Why?
Last edited by henra; 14th Jan 2013 at 18:36.
A question to those in the know: Is the avionics bay, or even the pressurized part of the fuselage the only place eligible for installation of the battery type used in the 787? On my aircraft (DH8), the 3 batteries (Nickel-Cadmium type) are in the non-pressurized part of the nose cone and there are vent openings overboard to prevent the buildup of any untoward gasses. And they seem rather unbothered by the often changing ambient conditions. So I do wonder why Boeing engineers did not elect to put the batteries somewhere they cannot cause as much havoc as they can right in the avionics bay (which is among the last places I would want an unruly battery in, personally); typically, there should be ample space in the tail cone and the wiring between the APU and the battery would also be shorter and lighter.
I trust that there is something I did not consider though?
I trust that there is something I did not consider though?
Last edited by Tu.114; 14th Jan 2013 at 19:10.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
t
henra: "Just one word: Why?"
Just two words: poor judgment
In the face of well known performance issues, a spec that ignored concerns without mitigating the risks known in the field.....
Unfair?
As to the two prior airborne emergencies....
1. The tool that was left caused the fire. Was there any involvement of the Battery? Any danger presented by the heat in the EE bay due tool fire?
2. The Generator. It was involved, ok, in what way? Was there a charging issue that overloaded the charger/system? Was there risk due to excess heat re: Lithium Ion battery presence?
And,
3. (Boston) At what point did the APU Battery ignite, and for what reason? Was it on discharge, or charge?
Is this down to Battery spec, distribution, or systemic load controlling?
Just two words: poor judgment
In the face of well known performance issues, a spec that ignored concerns without mitigating the risks known in the field.....
Unfair?
As to the two prior airborne emergencies....
1. The tool that was left caused the fire. Was there any involvement of the Battery? Any danger presented by the heat in the EE bay due tool fire?
2. The Generator. It was involved, ok, in what way? Was there a charging issue that overloaded the charger/system? Was there risk due to excess heat re: Lithium Ion battery presence?
And,
3. (Boston) At what point did the APU Battery ignite, and for what reason? Was it on discharge, or charge?
Is this down to Battery spec, distribution, or systemic load controlling?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poor judgement?
Some aerospace corporations are keen to bring hordes of young recent graduates into the engineering ranks. Economical, anxious to please. To make way for them, senior folks are given incentives and opportunities to leave the company. All their experience has supposedly been captured in what passes for SOPs in the engineering world, so no worries.
Has Boeing been following that path in recent years?
Some aerospace corporations are keen to bring hordes of young recent graduates into the engineering ranks. Economical, anxious to please. To make way for them, senior folks are given incentives and opportunities to leave the company. All their experience has supposedly been captured in what passes for SOPs in the engineering world, so no worries.
Has Boeing been following that path in recent years?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
poorjohn
No one in the industry would admit to that. It really does not matter, in this case, unless there is reasonable action taken. The industry is so into ass covering and deflection, it is difficult to get a straight answer anyway.
We do have a politician (transportation Secretary) reminding us that his job is public safety. I wonder if he had to look it up?
No one in the industry would admit to that. It really does not matter, in this case, unless there is reasonable action taken. The industry is so into ass covering and deflection, it is difficult to get a straight answer anyway.
We do have a politician (transportation Secretary) reminding us that his job is public safety. I wonder if he had to look it up?