FAA Grounds 787s
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: WA USA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NY Times update
Interesting information here, if it hasn't already been noted, including the fact that United also replaced batteries. The number of replacements seems astonishing, given the number of planes they have and how recently they were delivered.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/02/bu...omponents.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/02/bu...omponents.html
Hello RR_NDB,
For just a moment, I thought you had strayed off-topic: saying "CRM inside BA cockpit must have alternative options." Most people here in the UK use "BA" - in an aviation context - as an abreviation for British Airways. Boeing is Boeing, and CRM in a cockpit can be just as complex as the charging and monitoring system of a multi-cell Li-ion battery...
But if you suggest that Boeing must have had a Plan B (or more) somewhere up its sleeve, that makes absolute sense. Are you further speculating that Plan B might have been rejected by the FAA?
For just a moment, I thought you had strayed off-topic: saying "CRM inside BA cockpit must have alternative options." Most people here in the UK use "BA" - in an aviation context - as an abreviation for British Airways. Boeing is Boeing, and CRM in a cockpit can be just as complex as the charging and monitoring system of a multi-cell Li-ion battery...
But if you suggest that Boeing must have had a Plan B (or more) somewhere up its sleeve, that makes absolute sense. Are you further speculating that Plan B might have been rejected by the FAA?
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This aircraft isn't going anywhere any time soon. Not this year, maybe even not next.
On the other hand a long grounding and loss of confidence @ la DC10 might have a financial impact but is not necessarily synomym to commercial failure.
A bit of historical backround for the young generation here :
The (extremely bad) publicity around the DC10 at the time did not prevent Douglas to sell 432 of them , while the technically superior L-1011 only sold 250 and pushed Lockheed out of the civil airliner market for good.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: kuala lumpur
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If yu summarize what´s actually known about the 787 problems, I guess we will see them long time grounded. About TriStar you technically right, but not forget that it required sophisticated maintenance ...
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: U.K.
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I am very saddened by the problems Boeing are experiencing. I have flown all the Boeings (except B777 unfortunately) and they are truly a fantastic product ... the expectation that I would see out my last 15 years on a Dreamliner seem premature, and whilst a lot has been made of the inconvenience and financial burden placed on the airlines and the manufacturer ... there are many hundreds of Boeing pilots whose future does not look as rosy as a consequence of Boeing's difficulties with this aeroplane.
What was correctly marketed as a game changing aeroplane has affected every corner of this industry, and there are no winners. This whole episode is sad and disappointing, and I cannot see any quick fixes as the battery/charger problems are fundamental to the architecture and operation of the A/C. This on top of enormous delays ... a tragedy.
Let's hope for some Divine intervention ....
What was correctly marketed as a game changing aeroplane has affected every corner of this industry, and there are no winners. This whole episode is sad and disappointing, and I cannot see any quick fixes as the battery/charger problems are fundamental to the architecture and operation of the A/C. This on top of enormous delays ... a tragedy.
Let's hope for some Divine intervention ....
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, the script for the continuation of this story is completely predictable.
First, the issues surrounding certification and lack of safety verification by the FAA of the existing design will give the politicians a way to get maximal compliance from the FAA, and there will be some personnel changes there.
Second an alternate battery system will be recertified in record time, whether it is tested or not, because the needed FAA compliance will have been ensured.
Third some administrative reason will be found to create equivalent financial losses for Airbus, to offset what Boeing has lost due to sloppiness.
I expect that by now the NTSB has provided USA Inc. with a very good description of the ways in which future battery issues can be mitigated, and we will soon see an "inquiry" into the certification process, personnel changes, and the new battery system will be installed in the cabin in lieu of some overhead luggage bins within three months.
By the way, if this is just an "emergency" battery, there is no reason to have a charger on the plane, or even to charge the battery when mounted inside the airframe. A recognition of this detail might accelerate the implementation of a safe solution, and its certification.
First, the issues surrounding certification and lack of safety verification by the FAA of the existing design will give the politicians a way to get maximal compliance from the FAA, and there will be some personnel changes there.
Second an alternate battery system will be recertified in record time, whether it is tested or not, because the needed FAA compliance will have been ensured.
Third some administrative reason will be found to create equivalent financial losses for Airbus, to offset what Boeing has lost due to sloppiness.
I expect that by now the NTSB has provided USA Inc. with a very good description of the ways in which future battery issues can be mitigated, and we will soon see an "inquiry" into the certification process, personnel changes, and the new battery system will be installed in the cabin in lieu of some overhead luggage bins within three months.
By the way, if this is just an "emergency" battery, there is no reason to have a charger on the plane, or even to charge the battery when mounted inside the airframe. A recognition of this detail might accelerate the implementation of a safe solution, and its certification.
Last edited by edmundronald; 2nd Feb 2013 at 17:50.
With a situation like this one would hope that CEO McNerney would be taking the helm, communicating confidently with the media that the issue is correctly gripped, that engineering resolutions are under way using the right engineers for the job (because no matter how it all plays out, those engineers will be the ones coming up with the right fix).
But instead we don't get this, we get silly statements meant to appease Wall Street "aviation analysts" who may write glibly about billions of dollars but don't know one end of an aircraft from the other. We get PR wiffle-waffle that treats the receiving audience as know-nothings. We get multiple signs of some sort of stand-off between Boeing and the FAA. We get inappropriate downplaying of serious issues that anyone in the industry can see through.
At the corporate level Boeing need to realise that their potential customers pay good money for sophisticated engineering products. They don't pay money for media statements that don't add up, or other trivia. And these customers know that a competent engineering company needs competent top management that, whatever the issues, can put the right people in place to fix them. Who, hopefully, they still employ, and didn't outsource to save a few dollars on the quarterly earnings a while ago..
But instead we don't get this, we get silly statements meant to appease Wall Street "aviation analysts" who may write glibly about billions of dollars but don't know one end of an aircraft from the other. We get PR wiffle-waffle that treats the receiving audience as know-nothings. We get multiple signs of some sort of stand-off between Boeing and the FAA. We get inappropriate downplaying of serious issues that anyone in the industry can see through.
At the corporate level Boeing need to realise that their potential customers pay good money for sophisticated engineering products. They don't pay money for media statements that don't add up, or other trivia. And these customers know that a competent engineering company needs competent top management that, whatever the issues, can put the right people in place to fix them. Who, hopefully, they still employ, and didn't outsource to save a few dollars on the quarterly earnings a while ago..
By the way, if this is just an "emergency" battery, there is no reason to have a charger on the plane, or even to charge the battery when mounted inside the airframe. A recognition of this detail might accelerate the implementation of a safe solution, and its certification.
WHBM.
Very well said.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
trying to fix link...
to offset what Boeing has lost due to sloppiness
on occasion of their "demo flight", Aviation week wrote: "Boeing 787 engineers took on large-scale technology risks in designing this aircraft" - a statement which sadly seems to all too true (good read: Aviation Week Evaluates Boeing 787 ).
As for your predictions about USA inc, I'm not going to comment on that, but I predict once the issues have been understood and solved (which might take time), it will eventually fly
and I believe most people will praise it, and quickly forget about all of this.
Last edited by deptrai; 2nd Feb 2013 at 19:04.
it will eventually fly
and I believe most people will praise it,
and quickly forget about all of this.
Whether pressured by the FAA, customers, or its own management, I hope there are some serious lessons learned from this fiasco as to engineering, certification and contract management. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening based on only the last option. Someone will have to hold Boeing's feet to the fire.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes, agreed. with "most people", I meant "the public", and newspapers. Paying customers will no doubt "hold Boeing's feet to the fire".
Last edited by deptrai; 2nd Feb 2013 at 19:29.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: EDDF
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AI´s 787 are back in the sky:
VT-ANL - Air India - Flightradar24
VT-ANI - Air India - Flightradar24
Seems to be ferry flights, but strange they got release from India´s government.
AIC551 DEL 13:47 BOM 16:00 VT-ANK
AIC553 DEL 15:26 BOM 17:26 VT-ANI
AIC555 DEL 15:42 BOM 17:59 VT-ANL
VT-ANL - Air India - Flightradar24
VT-ANI - Air India - Flightradar24
Seems to be ferry flights, but strange they got release from India´s government.
AIC551 DEL 13:47 BOM 16:00 VT-ANK
AIC553 DEL 15:26 BOM 17:26 VT-ANI
AIC555 DEL 15:42 BOM 17:59 VT-ANL
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have in mind a rough corollary to Boeing's issues with the battery/system.
A defect in the Intermediate shaft of the TRENT972 was identified, and an AD issued. The desigh was marginal, and was wearing far too rapidly, Rolls was replacejng the shaft with an upgrade as fast as they could, logistically, and ate the cost, as I recall. After a time, the AD was relaxed, to allow for the engine to hang on the wing longer. Field change out was tried, and worked to a degree (The Rolls is modular, and maintenance, shaft swap was made easier due that engineering). Then QF32, due to a "duff stub pipe".
The point is, Rolls had a solution concurrent with the problem. I said ages ago, for Boeing to put this system into the field, and paint themselves into a corner should the device go t/u, is inconceivable. But they ate how many batteries?
It would be essentially the same as if they plugged the bleeds, cast their fate with electric pumps, and had no back up, "well simply open the bleeds".
What an incredible gamble if they have no fall back to a replacement for "five minutes of back up electrical power."
It is encouraging to see at least a few 787s back in the air at all, even if ferry.
A defect in the Intermediate shaft of the TRENT972 was identified, and an AD issued. The desigh was marginal, and was wearing far too rapidly, Rolls was replacejng the shaft with an upgrade as fast as they could, logistically, and ate the cost, as I recall. After a time, the AD was relaxed, to allow for the engine to hang on the wing longer. Field change out was tried, and worked to a degree (The Rolls is modular, and maintenance, shaft swap was made easier due that engineering). Then QF32, due to a "duff stub pipe".
The point is, Rolls had a solution concurrent with the problem. I said ages ago, for Boeing to put this system into the field, and paint themselves into a corner should the device go t/u, is inconceivable. But they ate how many batteries?
It would be essentially the same as if they plugged the bleeds, cast their fate with electric pumps, and had no back up, "well simply open the bleeds".
What an incredible gamble if they have no fall back to a replacement for "five minutes of back up electrical power."
It is encouraging to see at least a few 787s back in the air at all, even if ferry.
Last edited by Lyman; 2nd Feb 2013 at 23:18.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the same time the government certified Boeing's 787 Dreamliners as safe, federal rules barred the type of batteries used to power the airliner's electrical systems from being carried as cargo on passenger planes because of the fire risk.
Now the situation is reversed.
Dreamliners worldwide were grounded nearly three weeks ago after lithium ion batteries that are part of the planes led to a fire in one plane and smoke in a second. But new rules exempt aircraft batteries from the ban on large lithium ion batteries as cargo on flights by passenger planes.
In effect, that means the Dreamliner's batteries are now allowed to fly only if they're not attached to a Dreamliner.
The regulations were published on Jan. 7, the same day as a battery fire in a Japan Airlines 787 parked at Boston's Logan International Airport that took firefighters nearly 40 minutes to put out. The timing of the two events appears coincidental.
Pilots and safety advocates say the situation doesn't make sense. If the 787's battery system is too risky to allow the planes to fly, then it's too risky to ship the same batteries as cargo on airliners, they said.
Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, a former US Airways pilot famed for his precision flying that enabled passengers and crew to survive an emergency landing on the Hudson River in New York, said in an interview that he wouldn't be comfortable flying an airliner that carried lithium ion aircraft batteries in its cargo hold.
Now the situation is reversed.
Dreamliners worldwide were grounded nearly three weeks ago after lithium ion batteries that are part of the planes led to a fire in one plane and smoke in a second. But new rules exempt aircraft batteries from the ban on large lithium ion batteries as cargo on flights by passenger planes.
In effect, that means the Dreamliner's batteries are now allowed to fly only if they're not attached to a Dreamliner.
The regulations were published on Jan. 7, the same day as a battery fire in a Japan Airlines 787 parked at Boston's Logan International Airport that took firefighters nearly 40 minutes to put out. The timing of the two events appears coincidental.
Pilots and safety advocates say the situation doesn't make sense. If the 787's battery system is too risky to allow the planes to fly, then it's too risky to ship the same batteries as cargo on airliners, they said.
Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, a former US Airways pilot famed for his precision flying that enabled passengers and crew to survive an emergency landing on the Hudson River in New York, said in an interview that he wouldn't be comfortable flying an airliner that carried lithium ion aircraft batteries in its cargo hold.
I fully agree with Sully.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Closer than you think. I believe the "problem" had been "solved" prior to grounding. That is why the feverish effort to replace batteries, Machaca.
What is left is to come up with a workable "explanation" that will redirect focus to the selected (sic) conclusion.
Boeing is not surprised. Will not be surprised. You may be, but that will be your option.
What is left is to come up with a workable "explanation" that will redirect focus to the selected (sic) conclusion.
Boeing is not surprised. Will not be surprised. You may be, but that will be your option.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surreal
Hi,
We are observing a SURREAL situation.
The players, seems being represented by bureaucrats (with no enough active technical staff ) lost in a VERY BASIC issue: A DEPENDABLE AND SAFE DC SUPPLY, RECHARGEABLE "ON THE FLY".
The industry (at Boeing, FAA, NTSB and Suppliers) need Leadership (with Technical authority) to solve the virtual "stalemate". Where are good engineers (absolutely necessary NOW near the high rocks) to show the exits. Yes, there is not just one (exit).
We are dealing with one of the most basic "things": A DC supply.
The implications of this grounding are huge. Only comparable to the surreality we are observing.
We are observing a SURREAL situation.
The players, seems being represented by bureaucrats (with no enough active technical staff ) lost in a VERY BASIC issue: A DEPENDABLE AND SAFE DC SUPPLY, RECHARGEABLE "ON THE FLY".
The industry (at Boeing, FAA, NTSB and Suppliers) need Leadership (with Technical authority) to solve the virtual "stalemate". Where are good engineers (absolutely necessary NOW near the high rocks) to show the exits. Yes, there is not just one (exit).
We are dealing with one of the most basic "things": A DC supply.
The implications of this grounding are huge. Only comparable to the surreality we are observing.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The players, seems being represented by bureaucrats (with no enough active
technical staff ) lost in a VERY BASIC issue: A DEPENDABLE AND SAFE DC SUPPLY,
RECHARGEABLE "ON THE FLY".
The industry (at Boeing, FAA, NTSB and
Suppliers) need Leadership (with Technical authority) to solve the virtual
"stalemate". Where are good engineers (absolutely necessary NOW near the high
rocks) to show the exits. Yes, there is not just one (exit).
Boeing moved their headquarters to Chicago to "...get the engineers out of the Board Room." Are you suggesting that they let a few back in?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I started posting here just after Burkill put 038 in the mud.
Since that time, three mildly different iterations of the same failure mechanism have occurred, in one instance with great loss of life...
BA038, AF447, QF32, and now, thankfully prior to fatalities, the DREAM.
This is the same accident, with mildly different particulars.
Engineering, Production, Certification, and Regulation.
All four are sick, and the public is at risk.
If we keep focusing on minor bits, like a chicken staring at a line in the sand, more people will die.
ICE, ICE, STUB PIPE, BATTERY......bull****.
An elegant solution to the systemic problems comes to mind, one that will please everyone, save those responsible for, and profiting from, the root causes...
BTW That AP "Exclusive" was stolen from PPRuNe (ever the loyal bear)
Since that time, three mildly different iterations of the same failure mechanism have occurred, in one instance with great loss of life...
BA038, AF447, QF32, and now, thankfully prior to fatalities, the DREAM.
This is the same accident, with mildly different particulars.
Engineering, Production, Certification, and Regulation.
All four are sick, and the public is at risk.
If we keep focusing on minor bits, like a chicken staring at a line in the sand, more people will die.
ICE, ICE, STUB PIPE, BATTERY......bull****.
An elegant solution to the systemic problems comes to mind, one that will please everyone, save those responsible for, and profiting from, the root causes...
BTW That AP "Exclusive" was stolen from PPRuNe (ever the loyal bear)
Last edited by Lyman; 3rd Feb 2013 at 14:32.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: belgium
Age: 78
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they have to use LiFePO4 battery
lithium iron phosphate cells are much harder to ignite in the event of mishandling especially during charge,
It is commonly accepted that LiFePO4 battery does not decompose at high temperatures.
more with google...
Batteries LiFePO4 - Endless Sphere Wiki
lithium iron phosphate cells are much harder to ignite in the event of mishandling especially during charge,
It is commonly accepted that LiFePO4 battery does not decompose at high temperatures.
more with google...
Batteries LiFePO4 - Endless Sphere Wiki
Last edited by polux; 3rd Feb 2013 at 14:41.