Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

FAA Grounds 787s

Wikiposts
Search
Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

FAA Grounds 787s

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 7th Feb 2013, 20:12
  #681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lyman,
Unless you are looking at the battery from behind
Or as it is shown on pages 7 and 9 ?
HazelNuts39 is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 20:27
  #682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No, as it is shown on page 8

Caveat. If you consider the reference for NTSB page seven and nine are "plan view" then by reference ONLY, page seven can be construed as accurate. Stand alone, page seven is reversed. "elevation"


Last edited by Lyman; 7th Feb 2013 at 20:50.
Lyman is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 20:32
  #683 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
787 battery approval should be reconsidered, top accident investigator says | Fox News

National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman said the board's investigation of last month's battery fire in a Japan Airlines 787 "Dreamliner" while it was parked in Boston shows the fire started with multiple short-circuits in one of the battery's eight cells. That created an uncontrolled chemical reaction known as "thermal runaway" and spread to the rest of the cells, she said.

That's at odds with what Boeing told the Federal Aviation Administration when the agency was working to certify the innovative aircraft for flight, Hersman said. The manufacturer asserted its testing showed that any short circuiting could be contained within a single cell, preventing thermal runaway and fire, she said.


Boeing's testing also showed the batteries were likely to cause smoke in only 1 in 10 million flight hours, she said. But the Boston fire was followed nine days later by a smoking battery in an All Nippon Airways plane that made an emergency landing in Japan. The 787, Boeing's newest and most technologically advanced plane, has recorded less than 100,000 flight hours, Hersman noted.

Last edited by EastMids; 7th Feb 2013 at 20:33.
EastMids is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 22:46
  #684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oxford, England
Posts: 297
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
llagonne66:
If you read between the lines, NTSB appears to take a tough stance and FAA looks on the defensive as they have certified the A/C while apparently overlooking something ...
Probably close to the truth. If outsourcing is so fashionable these days, perhaps the
FAA did that as well ?.

But, who watches the watchers ?
syseng68k is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 23:53
  #685 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Grrr

Lyman:
Correction to NTSB images.
Good catch. Page 7 (top view) shows cell 8 at the front of the battery. Page 8 (side view) shows cell 8 at the rear.
If we are going to follow the narrative with these visual aides, we age going to get lost. Which cell #6 ran away first?

I hope this is just a problem with the people doing the presentation artwork and not NTSB's evidence.
EEngr is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 23:54
  #686 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: new jersey, usa
Age: 78
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
guys, just a post from left field.....i'm not that knowledgeable about aircraft design, but just from common sense and experience, why would you place any substance, gizmo, etc. that could possibly (and, according to Murphy's Law, will at some point) become toxic anywhere near the pilots of a commercial aircraft, who are the only ones on board with a chance of saving the situation. i don't know what the airbus folks are doing with the a350 in the works, but i'd love a look at it.
eastsidewillie is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 00:10
  #687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New Zealand
Age: 67
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Test flights to go ahead
BBC News - Boeing gets permission for Dreamliner test flights
WanganuiLad is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 00:59
  #688 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ANA 787 smoke

Hi,

The main battery smoke left from the plane in two points:

The one underneath was what?



Last edited by RR_NDB; 8th Feb 2013 at 23:43. Reason: Add pic
RR_NDB is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 07:29
  #689 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: next to a beautiful lake
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
EEngr and cwatters:

"The 8 sub batteries are balanced but the 6 cells in parallel in each don't appear to be. However that's not usually a problem because cells in parallel will tend to auto balance..."

They tend to auto balance as long as charge/discharge currents are not too high. If for some reason a sudden current spike occurs, then the paralleled cells can start to misbehave due to inrush/outrush currents being momentarily too high for the auto balancing mode to work fine. For normal operations this may well be not an issue at all, but if an abnormal situation occurrs and current spikes are appearing I would prefer not to have to rely on auto balancing of Li-Ion (and LiPo for that matter) cells.
HeadingSouth is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 10:36
  #690 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Snoop

edit : Preseance to WanganuiLad : I missed his post with BBC message...sorry

US clears Boeing to start 787 test flights - Transport - ArabianBusiness.com

"US clears Boeing to start 787 test flights By Reuters Friday, 8 February 2013 10:46 AM :

US agencies cleared Boeing Co to restart test flights of its grounded 787 Dreamliner in order to get more data on potentially faulty batteries, but they also demanded a closer look at how the batteries were approved, which may delay resuming delivery of Boeing's newest aircraft.

The 50 Dreamliners in service were grounded worldwide on January 16, after a series of battery incidents, including a fire on board a parked 787 in Boston and an in-flight problem on another plane in Japan. The groundings have cost airlines tens of millions of dollars, with no end in sight."

Last edited by roulishollandais; 8th Feb 2013 at 20:55.
roulishollandais is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 11:36
  #691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,651
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 15 Posts
I see that Boeing PR, who have been notably coy/inept on the subject to date, have suddenly leapt into action with news stories ensured in just about every publication imaginable that test flights are to start.

It really is rather a specialist subject, the operation of some test flights, but I suppose everyone at PR will now be working 24 hours a day hammering their media contacts to ensure an unending diet of "test flight takes off successfully", "test flight lands successfully", and such like.
WHBM is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 11:46
  #692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,816
Received 201 Likes on 93 Posts
which may delay resuming delivery of Boeing's newest aircraft
No kidding ?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 12:25
  #693 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wonder how many test flights will need to take place before an incident of any sort happens, or, conversely, when do you stop if no events happen.
green granite is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 13:04
  #694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Test flights are generally conducted to obtain data, not to provoke 'incidents'.
All possible precautions are usually taken to minimize the risk of potentially uncontrollable situations.

Last edited by HazelNuts39; 8th Feb 2013 at 13:10.
HazelNuts39 is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 13:26
  #695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If I am Boeing, I am thrilled that this type is airborne once more, for any reason.
It is a beginning to a critical process of re acceptance, as well as re certified....
Prolonged perception of "cannot fly" by the public is having an effect on other than airworthiness.

To deny that is silly. And to frame the test flights as strictly single purpose is a bit narrow, imho. For three years past its due date, the company worked feverishly to get it airborne...

Call it cultural corporate memory...

Last edited by Lyman; 8th Feb 2013 at 13:29.
Lyman is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 13:37
  #696 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Prolonged perception of "cannot fly" by the public is having an effect on other than airworthiness.
Well .. not exactly the same .. but the DC-10 had some problems at it's "debut" and killed a lot of passengers (the most in the medias was the crash of Ermenonville TY DC-10 Capt Berkoz at commands)
Anyways .. passengers continued to happily boarding the DC-10

Last edited by jcjeant; 8th Feb 2013 at 13:38.
jcjeant is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 13:56
  #697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not me. The only time I saw a DC-10 launch I saw #2 compressor Stall at rotate, the flame was a hundred feet long, my girlfriend was on board.
Mexicana. I have never flown on a Douglas aircraft, save the -9.

Boeing was shrill, offensive, and played the corporate lunatic when FAA finally grounded the DREAM. They were replacing batteries, and they may have thought they had solved "the problem".
Lyman is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 14:24
  #698 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Test flights are generally conducted to obtain data, not to provoke 'incidents'.
All possible precautions are usually taken to minimize the risk of potentially uncontrollable situations.
Sorry HazelNuts39 I think we are at cross purposes here possibly due to my use of the word 'incident' to mean an individual occurrence or event out side of the normal operating parameters of the battery or charging system, I wasn't thinking of a catastrophic battery failure.

Without such an event they will have no more knowledge than they have now, hence my comment on how long do they keep looking for something.

What would be interesting to know is what instrumentation has been added to the battery pack and charging system to record the parameters.

Last edited by green granite; 8th Feb 2013 at 14:25.
green granite is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 14:43
  #699 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
my use of the word 'incident' to mean an individual occurrence or event out side of the normal operating parameters
I'm not even sure they will be looking for that.

That would be an open-ended project that could take months of 'incident-free' flying before seeing something out of the ordinary. As Hazel says, this may be no more than an exercise in real-time data collection. Remember Boeing should have 100-150 batteries worth of data from the 'swap-outs' to go by, so this operation must be looking for something over and above what they already have.

I'm not sure what extra gear would need to be hooked up to the system over and above what is already there to 'feed' the algorithm. And remember, any further monitoring of things like sub-cell temperatures, voltages and currents would be fairly invasive of the actual battery itself to the point where you would be effectively looking at a different system.
Speed of Sound is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 15:07
  #700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A possibility might be that the Aft E/E bay has been made accessible in flight by removal of cabin floor decking, for real time minute observations to ascertain how better to make the system more compatible with the LithiumIon FARs.

It would be naive to think that Boeing is playing a boy scout role in trying to eliminate the issue. Or even solve the problem, beyond a minimal, and lobbied for, result that lifts the order to park.

'Best practice' is about getting back in the air. Not entirely, but when the self certifier and lead commercial interest in the investigation is not, cannot be, objective.....

The certifying criteria for this technology is cobbled together by the manufacturer, that is a known. The recent waiver of the FAR that prohibited LithIon batteries as cargo is case in point....How did BOEING ship replacement LIBs prior to January 7? RAILROAD? How did that FRP work, exactly?

Hersman is the one to listen to, FAA and Boeing? Not so much...

Last edited by Lyman; 8th Feb 2013 at 15:25.
Lyman is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.