FAA Grounds 787s
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: far too low
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quickie. Boeing stating they won't deliver anymore till problem's fixed is surely a moot point. For a simple pilot like me, if pretty much every aviation administration around the world requires compliance with this AD then surely the aircraft won't be allowed to fly anyway, so couldn't be delivered? Or is this Boeing trying to spin some feel good publicity?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And let's not forget the "if it's not Boeing I'm not" going brigade who laughed at Airbus. They've all gone quite now.
The big problem for Boeing is the pictures of grounded aircraft,the airframes coming out of the plant and the negative publicity.
No Airbus alarm over Boeing's Dreamliners | Video | Reuters.com
Airbus will milk this for what it is worth.
Now let's looks at the worst according to Flight International..
How Boeing can bounce back from Dreamliner problems - CNN.com
The big problem for Boeing is the pictures of grounded aircraft,the airframes coming out of the plant and the negative publicity.
No Airbus alarm over Boeing's Dreamliners | Video | Reuters.com
Airbus will milk this for what it is worth.
Now let's looks at the worst according to Flight International..
A much worse case is that the malaise spreads to the entire electrical architecture of the Dreamliner, forcing a back-to-the-drawing-board rethink of Boeing's design philosophy. This might take the aircraft out of service for a year or more, and would bring the airframer close to financial meltdown as it battled with a crisis much worse than the delay it experienced getting the 787 to certification.
This, however, is extremely unlikely. While Boeing took a gamble in creating an aircraft so dependent on electrical systems and composite aerostructures, it has already gone through the lengthy and painful process of convincing regulators the Dreamliner is safe. That the authorities signed off on an aircraft with such a fundamental design flaw is close to inconceivable.
As for the other incidents that have beset the type over the past few months -- a fan shaft failure on an engine, an oil leak, a windshield crack -- all can safely be put down to teething problems. Most new aircraft experience issues of this sort, an inevitable consequence of a test program becoming a production aircraft and the sheer complexity of modern airliner design.
This, however, is extremely unlikely. While Boeing took a gamble in creating an aircraft so dependent on electrical systems and composite aerostructures, it has already gone through the lengthy and painful process of convincing regulators the Dreamliner is safe. That the authorities signed off on an aircraft with such a fundamental design flaw is close to inconceivable.
As for the other incidents that have beset the type over the past few months -- a fan shaft failure on an engine, an oil leak, a windshield crack -- all can safely be put down to teething problems. Most new aircraft experience issues of this sort, an inevitable consequence of a test program becoming a production aircraft and the sheer complexity of modern airliner design.
Last edited by Ye Olde Pilot; 20th Jan 2013 at 21:50.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deepening crisis
fdr, Lyman and gorter
The severity of the crisis is showed by the "Review of the 787."
Since the beginning i am with the impression FAA is not acting properly.
They seems acting too politically and somewhat aggravating the issue.
They should know much more than we have now.
Ye Olde Pilot
It seems we are watching just the onset of a nightmare.
The severity of the crisis is showed by the "Review of the 787."
Since the beginning i am with the impression FAA is not acting properly.
They seems acting too politically and somewhat aggravating the issue.
They should know much more than we have now.
if pretty much every aviation administration around the world requires compliance with this AD then surely the aircraft won't be allowed to fly anyway,
Ye Olde Pilot
It seems we are watching just the onset of a nightmare.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about nightmare but unless Boeing can sort these problems quickly and restore confidence their share price could dive. Airlines have invested money in these grounded airframes and we have insurers who will no doubt be hiking their rates for the Dreamliner.
The media are having a field day. How do you convince passengers to fly
on an aircraft with such problems?
As the engineers try to resolve the issues the bills are stacking up.
The media are having a field day. How do you convince passengers to fly
on an aircraft with such problems?
As the engineers try to resolve the issues the bills are stacking up.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just teething?
Ye Olde Pilot
All?
The innovation on the Dreamliner was very big. The magnitude is unprecedented*, i guess.
(*) For an airliner
...all can safely be put down to teething problems.
All? The innovation on the Dreamliner was very big. The magnitude is unprecedented*, i guess.
(*) For an airliner
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Implicit in this FAA 'review' is a thorough inventory of the relationship Boeing/FAA.
So it is worthy of note that Boeing is defensive. In aviation, 'attitude' is all.
Landing gear in mouth disease...
From CNN......
"The grounding of the 787 fleet illustrates not the flaws in Boeing's industrial culture -- a rush to bring the airliner to market, a degree of over-innovation or a desire to please shareholders by outsourcing too much design and production -- but the rigor of a regulatory regime with a zero tolerance of any mote of imperfection. And, for anyone who flies, that is good to know."
Rubbish, and I call BS on this.... Japan grounded them first, and FAA followed suit.
Likewise, thirty percent of this CNN piece is lifted from PPRuNe...
So it is worthy of note that Boeing is defensive. In aviation, 'attitude' is all.
Landing gear in mouth disease...
From CNN......
"The grounding of the 787 fleet illustrates not the flaws in Boeing's industrial culture -- a rush to bring the airliner to market, a degree of over-innovation or a desire to please shareholders by outsourcing too much design and production -- but the rigor of a regulatory regime with a zero tolerance of any mote of imperfection. And, for anyone who flies, that is good to know."
Rubbish, and I call BS on this.... Japan grounded them first, and FAA followed suit.
Likewise, thirty percent of this CNN piece is lifted from PPRuNe...
Last edited by Lyman; 20th Jan 2013 at 22:34.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing have immediate worries, as to losses, but if they value their reputation, they'll stop talking, sounding petulant, and growsing. Or their long term image will suffer.
This problem will likely sort, and soon, so I can't fathom their immature public profile.
This problem will likely sort, and soon, so I can't fathom their immature public profile.
CNN: "FAA zero tolerance"
You're kidding!
So then when are the B738's with the bogus ring frames going to be grounded, and the OEM pinged for their behaviour? Heck, have only had 3 accidents where the aircraft have broken up at these locations...
The FAA is grossly underfunded and undermanned. They are also politicised, and operate in an environment of continuous uncertainty due to the delights of the USA's "Fort Fumble" senate funding.
You're kidding!
So then when are the B738's with the bogus ring frames going to be grounded, and the OEM pinged for their behaviour? Heck, have only had 3 accidents where the aircraft have broken up at these locations...
The FAA is grossly underfunded and undermanned. They are also politicised, and operate in an environment of continuous uncertainty due to the delights of the USA's "Fort Fumble" senate funding.
Last edited by fdr; 20th Jan 2013 at 23:10.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ridiculous media
fdr,
Zero tolerance to BS means never read this type of media. 
They seems aggravating a yet serious issue.
...but the rigor of a regulatory regime with a zero tolerance of any mote of imperfection. And, for anyone who flies, that is good to know
They are also politicised
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Korea
Age: 62
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we know the specific technical reason why the plane was grounded?
Obviously the APU would not have been able to start via the battery. I dont believe this alone is a reason to ground it.
The EAD states there was heat damage. What was damaged? I can see the battery experienced significant heat damage. Was this heat damage enough to affect the safety of the plane? Was there any other heat damage. Was that enough to effect the safety?
The EAD states there was smoke. I assume the smoke they refer to was coming from the battery and nothing else. Sure, smoke does not look good but it does not mean safety is compromised. Of course the smoke would have to be ducted outside the aircraft and not into the cabin during flight.
The EAD states there was release of flammable electrolytes. Is this the issue that grounded the plane? Was there a risk of the electrolytes bursting into flames and damaging the structure or critical systems? It is not clear.
There is no indication that I have heard that there were flames in the electrical equipment bay.
Perhaps the plane is safe? Perhaps the measures taken by the battery manufacturer to contain any fire worked? Sure, the picture of the battery with the cover removed looks bad but flames successfully contained within the battery casing does not neccassarily pose a safety risk
Obviously the APU would not have been able to start via the battery. I dont believe this alone is a reason to ground it.
The EAD states there was heat damage. What was damaged? I can see the battery experienced significant heat damage. Was this heat damage enough to affect the safety of the plane? Was there any other heat damage. Was that enough to effect the safety?
The EAD states there was smoke. I assume the smoke they refer to was coming from the battery and nothing else. Sure, smoke does not look good but it does not mean safety is compromised. Of course the smoke would have to be ducted outside the aircraft and not into the cabin during flight.
The EAD states there was release of flammable electrolytes. Is this the issue that grounded the plane? Was there a risk of the electrolytes bursting into flames and damaging the structure or critical systems? It is not clear.
There is no indication that I have heard that there were flames in the electrical equipment bay.
Perhaps the plane is safe? Perhaps the measures taken by the battery manufacturer to contain any fire worked? Sure, the picture of the battery with the cover removed looks bad but flames successfully contained within the battery casing does not neccassarily pose a safety risk
Safety was compromised
The battery fire in the JAL plane took the Logan fire department, with unlimited extinguishing agent and manpower, plus ground access, a half hour to extinguish . That does not look good for an in flight recovery. Then the ANA incident proved damage in flight was not contained in the compartment, but rather that fumes impacted the cockpit and passenger cabin. Seems reasonable to me to conclude that this is a safety of flight issue.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the AD is self explanatory. But I see no reason not to criticize FAA either. It is a valid opinion; for that matter, Boeing seems to be challenging the FAA as well.
At least from a public point of view, Boeing is making the FAA look bad, the FAA is making itself look bad, by hesitating, and Boeing is making Boeing look bad.
In the middle is a 40Billion dollar program with over 800 airframes sold.
Who defends the program? Not the egotists playing games.... This aircraft deserves better....
Who is defending the aircraft from a seemingly boneheaded decision to utilize high strung storage chemistry?
Enough Pride, and that embarrassing stubbornness. It's a beautiful aircraft, fix it. You're ten meters from the finish line, stop whining.
At least from a public point of view, Boeing is making the FAA look bad, the FAA is making itself look bad, by hesitating, and Boeing is making Boeing look bad.
In the middle is a 40Billion dollar program with over 800 airframes sold.
Who defends the program? Not the egotists playing games.... This aircraft deserves better....
Who is defending the aircraft from a seemingly boneheaded decision to utilize high strung storage chemistry?
Enough Pride, and that embarrassing stubbornness. It's a beautiful aircraft, fix it. You're ten meters from the finish line, stop whining.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
concur,
the FAA went above and beyond to provide Boeing with an expedited validation process....
Now the FAA is going to review the entire process...
and that was BEFORE Boeing slammed them..
It was also interesting that Boeing looks like they will not compensate airlines that are grounded, stating "you accepted it"...
one can only imagine where this is all going.
(dont worry, the engineers are going to strike anyways...wont have to worry about deliveries in the near future...)
from the other thread..
"Boeing will move away from its original lithium ion battery design for its main and auxiliary power units, flight-control electronics, emergency lighting system and recorder independent power supply. Instead, Boeing is investigating the incorporation of manganese inside the lithium ion battery to boost service life.
Boeing has not determined which 787 will be the first to receive the new battery modifications, although multiple programme sources have told Flight's FlightBlogger affiliate that the new battery could be introduced as early as Airplane Seven, the first production 787 scheduled for delivery to All Nippon Airways in the third quarter of 2009. "
Boeing looks to boost 787 lithium ion battery service life
This just in....
Federal investigations said Sunday they had ruled out excessive voltage as the cause of a battery fire on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner in Boston this month,
"excessive" is different than "overcharging"....
the FAA went above and beyond to provide Boeing with an expedited validation process....
Now the FAA is going to review the entire process...
and that was BEFORE Boeing slammed them..
It was also interesting that Boeing looks like they will not compensate airlines that are grounded, stating "you accepted it"...
one can only imagine where this is all going.
(dont worry, the engineers are going to strike anyways...wont have to worry about deliveries in the near future...)
from the other thread..
"Boeing will move away from its original lithium ion battery design for its main and auxiliary power units, flight-control electronics, emergency lighting system and recorder independent power supply. Instead, Boeing is investigating the incorporation of manganese inside the lithium ion battery to boost service life.
Boeing has not determined which 787 will be the first to receive the new battery modifications, although multiple programme sources have told Flight's FlightBlogger affiliate that the new battery could be introduced as early as Airplane Seven, the first production 787 scheduled for delivery to All Nippon Airways in the third quarter of 2009. "
Boeing looks to boost 787 lithium ion battery service life
This just in....
Federal investigations said Sunday they had ruled out excessive voltage as the cause of a battery fire on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner in Boston this month,
"excessive" is different than "overcharging"....
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 21st Jan 2013 at 02:34.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont seem to remember...Pilot smells something burning and decides to emergency land the aircraft..
as a viable part of the safety system...
that according to Boeing, " worked perfectly"...
as a viable part of the safety system...
that according to Boeing, " worked perfectly"...
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 21st Jan 2013 at 02:49.
RR_NDB
Good start at a certification basis 
Now may we have some facts of what parts of this may not have been met? (anybody).
Keep in mind that equivalent safety basis may accept some failure conditions if they are protected against.
Enough reasons for grounding?
Now may we have some facts of what parts of this may not have been met? (anybody).
Keep in mind that equivalent safety basis may accept some failure conditions if they are protected against.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 78
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Boeing stockholder I guess it is time to make my feelings known to the board of directors. Telling the press that the leaders of the NTSB and FAA don't know the front of the plane from the back - what kind of PR people would allow such remarks no matter what personal feelings might be.
The fire on the ground in Boston - apparently there was no on-board fire supression system to control the fire. The Boston fire fighters had difficulty reaching the batteries and in fact sustained an injury getting the the source to extinguish the fire. I have not seen a Boeing statement on this other than say the cabin is pressurized so that if such a problem happened in flight the pressure would push the smoke out so the passengers wouldn't breath it. That remark did not build confidence in me. Stop the freaking fire!
They also said a battery fire could not happen in flight because the APU battery was only used on the ground. Okay, I am not a pilot, but I have read blogs where pilots talk about starting the APU while the plane is still in the air. Is this wrong?
In the ANA airliner the battery was not an APU starting battery. Okay, second fire within a month. This is serious.
Li-Ion batteries are not the only ones that can explode. Anyone who has worked with good oldtime lead-acid batteries is familiar with all of the safety precautions. Remember the old faithful VW Beetle? It's battery was under the rear seat. My boss' wife and daughter were seriously burned by the sulphuric acid when the battery in their car exploded. It is not only new tech that causes problems, but failure to admit problems and resolve them...
Boeing management is remarkably similar to MD with the DC-10. First they have a cargo door fail during fatigue testing. The famous Convair memo that if we don't fix this we are going to kill someone. Then an in-air accident happens over Windsor and again MD ignores saying the plane is safe. It took the plane crash in France killing 346 people before they recognized they had a serious problem. I have a shadow box on my wall with a half dozen pieces from that aircraft reminding me what mistakes can cost.
It will take something like proving that a fire resulting from a battery problem can be safely contained - under ETOPS conditions.
The fire on the ground in Boston - apparently there was no on-board fire supression system to control the fire. The Boston fire fighters had difficulty reaching the batteries and in fact sustained an injury getting the the source to extinguish the fire. I have not seen a Boeing statement on this other than say the cabin is pressurized so that if such a problem happened in flight the pressure would push the smoke out so the passengers wouldn't breath it. That remark did not build confidence in me. Stop the freaking fire!
They also said a battery fire could not happen in flight because the APU battery was only used on the ground. Okay, I am not a pilot, but I have read blogs where pilots talk about starting the APU while the plane is still in the air. Is this wrong?
In the ANA airliner the battery was not an APU starting battery. Okay, second fire within a month. This is serious.
Li-Ion batteries are not the only ones that can explode. Anyone who has worked with good oldtime lead-acid batteries is familiar with all of the safety precautions. Remember the old faithful VW Beetle? It's battery was under the rear seat. My boss' wife and daughter were seriously burned by the sulphuric acid when the battery in their car exploded. It is not only new tech that causes problems, but failure to admit problems and resolve them...
Boeing management is remarkably similar to MD with the DC-10. First they have a cargo door fail during fatigue testing. The famous Convair memo that if we don't fix this we are going to kill someone. Then an in-air accident happens over Windsor and again MD ignores saying the plane is safe. It took the plane crash in France killing 346 people before they recognized they had a serious problem. I have a shadow box on my wall with a half dozen pieces from that aircraft reminding me what mistakes can cost.
It will take something like proving that a fire resulting from a battery problem can be safely contained - under ETOPS conditions.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Korea
Age: 62
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Etudiant,
Did it take half an hour to extinguish the fire? It seems the fire department would have been confronted with a battery with smoke pouring out its seams. Did they really try to extinguish the fire contained within the battery housing or did it take half an hour to burn itself out? What danger did this smoke pose to the structure or the critical systems? Would this smoke be life threatening to the passengers or crew? From what I have read in this forum the smoke would not have entered the cabin while in flight. There was a smell of smoke while on the ground but it did not seem life threatening. I have not read anything that clarifies these points. I don’t expect I will find anything until after the full investigation is completed.
RR_NDB,
The quotes you refer to sound very bad. Do you think all planes with Lithium ion batteries should be grounded?
I’m not trying to say the planes should not have been grounded. I am a strong believer in engineering that is robust and a little conservative and having the advantage of hind sight I think nicads should be used. However I try not to think I know better than Boeing. Perhaps they have done it right? In any case with all the drama that has been generated I think Boeing will be forced to get rid of the Li batteries even if they do meet all the safety requirements.
Did it take half an hour to extinguish the fire? It seems the fire department would have been confronted with a battery with smoke pouring out its seams. Did they really try to extinguish the fire contained within the battery housing or did it take half an hour to burn itself out? What danger did this smoke pose to the structure or the critical systems? Would this smoke be life threatening to the passengers or crew? From what I have read in this forum the smoke would not have entered the cabin while in flight. There was a smell of smoke while on the ground but it did not seem life threatening. I have not read anything that clarifies these points. I don’t expect I will find anything until after the full investigation is completed.
RR_NDB,
The quotes you refer to sound very bad. Do you think all planes with Lithium ion batteries should be grounded?
I’m not trying to say the planes should not have been grounded. I am a strong believer in engineering that is robust and a little conservative and having the advantage of hind sight I think nicads should be used. However I try not to think I know better than Boeing. Perhaps they have done it right? In any case with all the drama that has been generated I think Boeing will be forced to get rid of the Li batteries even if they do meet all the safety requirements.
Last edited by Cool Guys; 21st Jan 2013 at 03:48.