FAA Grounds 787s

[poorjohn]

glenbrook:

I would like to believe that, but I am not sure that plan B is all that simple.
Maybe you are right, perhaps they have a non-Lithium-ion replacement that will fit the slot. But if they do, it is going to be 4 times heavier and twice the volume

Do I incorrectly recall that the battery weighs some 65 lbs? Adding another 200 lbs doesn't seem significant. (Guessing that the APU battery was identical to the Main for spares commonality, I've not multiplied by two.)

I do think that lithium batteries do have other advantages e.g. low internal resistance that might make replacing them more than simply a weight-and-volume issue, though.

[glenbrook]

Remember that the business case for the B787 was predicated on an increase in "point-to-point" journeys as compared to the traditional "hub-and-spoke" system. As such, it does not - at least initially - require ETOPS certification as it can fulfil that business case via intra-continental routes.

Boeing have 800 orders to fill for a 330-minute ETOPS certified aircraft. A 787 without ETOPS is still grounded. Would Boeing even be able to deliver them?

[DozyWannabe]

Originally Posted by poorjohn

Do I incorrectly recall that the battery weighs some 65 lbs? Adding another 200 lbs doesn't seem significant.

It's significant in that the aircraft was sold on the basis of fuel economy figures that have thus far proven optimistic even with the lightweight battery configuration.

Originally Posted by glenbrook

Boeing have 800 orders to fill for a 330-minute ETOPS certified aircraft.

Which I'm sure it will be once the issues have been ironed out.

A 787 without ETOPS is still grounded. Would Boeing even be able to deliver them?

It's grounded at the moment with or without ETOPS, for sure. At this point, nobody outside of Boeing knows precisely what contingency plan is in effect or what that plan constitutes. It goes without saying that the airframes can be ferried without ETOPS - the limitations would only apply in fare-paying service.

[Willie Everlearn]

The history of Lithium Ion batteries is not very flattering and their adverse effects in aircraft not that reassuring despite some positive characteristics.
If I might point to the volatility of these batteries whilst adding I acknowledge they were NOT connected to an electrical system at the time, they did bring down a B747-400 in Dubai in recent times.
Were lessons NOT learnt?

Is their lightness of weight, their ability to quickly recharge despite the residual heat they omit with such potential for disaster truly worth it?
Apparently.

This is what we get when manufacturers are pressurized by an industry that is so driven by the bottom line.

That's not news but that too is reality.

Willie

[dunwawry]

I don't think it has been pointed out, but the power distribution and charging circuits seem to be made by Thales:

Actually Securaplane in the U.S. is making the Battery Charging Unit and doing the testing for Thales.
The batteries themselves are being made by Yuasa in Japan.

[DozyWannabe]

Originally Posted by Willie Everlearn

they did bring down a B747-400 in Dubai in recent times.

Did they? The FAA released a precautionary bulletin and restriction on carrying consumer-grade Li-ion batteries following UPS006, but as far as I know there has been no confirmation that the batteries were the cause of the fire...

[lomapaseo]

The acceptable level of risk is one in a billion flight hours, not one in 25,000

Define what you mean by "risk"

I have yet to see what evidence applies in this case to the level of risk (either regulated by statue or to somebody's concept of safety).

All this re-quoting of the Special Condition is meaningless and pedantic unless expert assessments follow of what paragraphs were not met. In the end the means to unground will be made by corrective actions that bring it back into specific paragraph compliance and/or equivalent safety actions.

Neither the completion of these assessments has been made nor the proposed means of compliance, This then is the thorn that produces the delay and feeds the rampant uneducated discussions on the internet boards

[Desert Dawg]

@lomapaseo

I would like to meet you and shake your hand. Your last line in your post is spot on! Well said!

[TURIN]

Since when has it been an ETOPS requirement to have a serviceable APU? Or is the 787 different due to it's reliance on electrical systems?

[TURIN]

The batteries are likely to be interchangeable to increase despatch reliability. (oh the irony!)
IE. If you have a main battery (or charger) go u/s away from main base then swap with the APU battery and away you go. MEL 49-1 refers.

[Sober Lark]

Although familiar with the long list of early in service problems with the 787, I'm finding it difficult to understand why the aircraft had to be grounded by the FAA rather than pilots or their representative bodies taking the initiative and refusing to fly them first.

[glad rag]

Turin, that's quite a MEL entry.

Bit like the one for purging system for the fuel tanks and allows it to be inop for how long??

Sound a bit F35'ish tbh.

[Swiss Cheese]

Something must be seriously wrong for FAA and EASA to ground the 787

I was quietly amazed that the FAA grounded the 787, which of course was followed too by EASA (Can I hear EADS applauding in the background) . I was in shorts the last time the FAA grounded an airliner (DC-10 I recall) in the mid 1970s.

I have been critical of the FAA and EASA before for not grounding other aircraft when lives have been lost in highly dubious circumstances (Rudder PCUs in Boeing 737s, and ADIRU/Pitot problems in Airbus A330s).

I wonder what has changed the approach of the FAA, unless there really is something that bad with the 787....

[DaveReidUK]

Adding another 200 lbs doesn't seem significant.

Adding 200lbs to the OEW of any commercial airliner, even one as large as the 787, is hugely significant.

Not so much for the impact on fuel burn, though it doesn't help, but for the effect on payload and therefore revenue potential over the life of the aircraft.

OTOH, if that's the price that has to be paid to get the type back in the air (and I suspect it will be) then that's what will happen.

[toffeez]

DaveReidUK

Adding 200lbs to the OEW of a commercial airliner is not hugely significant.

200lb on the OEW equals 200lb off the payload, and only if the latter is already limited for some reason.

This means no revenue loss on almost all flights, and 200lb less cargo revenue on the remaining few.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by Turin

Since when has it been an ETOPS requirement

- it was in my company in 2008 for 737NG. Required to be started before entry into ETOPS area.

[vaschandi]

APU only required for ETOPS beyond 180 min

Interval: C
Installed: 1
Required: 0

May be inoperative or removed
a) VFSG systems operate normally
b) ETOPS beyond 180 minutes not conducted

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by various

Adding 200lbs to the OEW of a commercial airliner is not hugely significant.

Quite possibly. But only if you know exactly where to add it at the time. If you allow the battery system 200lbs more who else do you give extra weight allowance to in your design budget? Give it to 9 others and you have a 2000lb weight problem.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, helps make all sorts of decisions easy to make. Only problem is it's a bit late by then...

[hetfield]

Let's assume the 200lb additional weight of NiCd batteries instead of LiIon are realistic, IMHO the trade of for extremely more safety is out of question.

[cod liver oil]

The APU is required for the ETOPS certification, which by definition has to be very reliable and therefore needs a very reliable battery.

Power source for B787 APU starting may be airplane battery, a ground power source, or an engine-driven generator.

Wouldn't engine-driven generator be used as primary power source for APU in-flight lightup?