FAA Grounds 787s
Joined: Feb 2002
Aviation Qualifications: AME
Posts: 4,182
Likes: 1,116
From: UK
No. The press as usual are talking through their backsides.
The batteries on a 787 do the same job as on any other airliner, the difference is that because the control systems (I do not mean flight control specifically) rely so heavily on electrical power that in the event of a total main power loss the battery will need to last a while and keep lots of computers running.
The flight contol surfaces are still powered by hydraulics in the usual way.
The batteries on a 787 do the same job as on any other airliner, the difference is that because the control systems (I do not mean flight control specifically) rely so heavily on electrical power that in the event of a total main power loss the battery will need to last a while and keep lots of computers running.
The flight contol surfaces are still powered by hydraulics in the usual way.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
From: Grassy Valley
The FAA did not ground this aircraft. JAL and ANA did. There were only six 787s in service in the FAA jurisdiction, and these were flying domestic routes.
The FAA is a short tail on a big dog.....
This was merely a new iteration of what has become an ad hoc engineering feat.
The self grounding airplane.
What a miracle, airplanes that tell us, non fatally, what is wrong. Faulty tubesheet on the TRENT 7? Cracked ribs on the 380? Bogus oil fittings? Misplaced tools? Engines that vomit nickel on taxi?
Fuel gush, rippling plastic, keystone cop evacs on the taxi way? Forty minute fuselage fires?
Toyota can turn gasoline into electricity millions of times an hour, worldwide, but Boeing has problems turning kerosene into sparky without starting fires?
And Boeing does not use the electrics for propulsion.
Not rocket science.
Amazing.
The FAA is a short tail on a big dog.....
This was merely a new iteration of what has become an ad hoc engineering feat.
The self grounding airplane.
What a miracle, airplanes that tell us, non fatally, what is wrong. Faulty tubesheet on the TRENT 7? Cracked ribs on the 380? Bogus oil fittings? Misplaced tools? Engines that vomit nickel on taxi?
Fuel gush, rippling plastic, keystone cop evacs on the taxi way? Forty minute fuselage fires?
Toyota can turn gasoline into electricity millions of times an hour, worldwide, but Boeing has problems turning kerosene into sparky without starting fires?
And Boeing does not use the electrics for propulsion.
Not rocket science.
Amazing.
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
From: on land
paranoia or pragmatism?
I'm as commonly knowledgeable as pax get, and don't scare easy, but as it stands I do not trust the 787 to always intelligently 'ground itself' in an emergency. Plus, the emerging pattern is one of unpredictability - what other design/production issues remain and when will THEY arise?
I'm confident it'll be sorted out of course, for many varied reasons, some already mentioned it HAS to - in effect the 787 is 'too big to fail'
I'm confident it'll be sorted out of course, for many varied reasons, some already mentioned it HAS to - in effect the 787 is 'too big to fail'
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
From: UK
Who's bright idea was it to use Lithium-anything as a main battery on-board an aircraft, given all the problems of just transporting the things as cargo?
TNT have this to say: TNT Express - Lithium Cells and Batteries
I guess the 787 is a flying dangerous goods?
...and in the 787 they are not only transporting them, but are connected to chargers and are in constant use!
TNT have this to say: TNT Express - Lithium Cells and Batteries
I guess the 787 is a flying dangerous goods?
Following several serious (fire) incidents during transport, the regulations for this product type were adjusted and the more stringent regulatory requirements were introduced in 2009.
Last edited by ECAM_Actions; 17th January 2013 at 16:33.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
From: Cork, Ireland
The Yanks should call in the Iran Air engineers to sort out the 787 problems.
Their inclusion would (i) fix the battery problems and (ii) keep the airframes flying for the next fifty years!
The Iran Air engineers know how to keep aeroplanes flying!
Their inclusion would (i) fix the battery problems and (ii) keep the airframes flying for the next fifty years!
The Iran Air engineers know how to keep aeroplanes flying!
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
From: Denmark
Quote from FAA statement:
Before further flight, operators of U.S.-registered, Boeing 787 aircraft must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the batteries are safe.
In view of all the many possibilities for very serious failures of the Lithium-ion battery type - as described in the other threads re the 787 problem, and highlighted in the 2 recent cases - I cannot see how it in any way will be possible to satisfactorily fulfill this requirement. At least not in the short term.
I think that BOEING as a relatively quick fix will have to go "back" to an earlier battery technology, and honestly what are the problems with that: higher cost, heavier weight, more space required, costly and time consuming modifications - too bad, but manageable items for a large company.
Before further flight, operators of U.S.-registered, Boeing 787 aircraft must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the batteries are safe.
In view of all the many possibilities for very serious failures of the Lithium-ion battery type - as described in the other threads re the 787 problem, and highlighted in the 2 recent cases - I cannot see how it in any way will be possible to satisfactorily fulfill this requirement. At least not in the short term.
I think that BOEING as a relatively quick fix will have to go "back" to an earlier battery technology, and honestly what are the problems with that: higher cost, heavier weight, more space required, costly and time consuming modifications - too bad, but manageable items for a large company.
Last edited by grebllaw123d; 17th January 2013 at 18:03.
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 946
Likes: 445
From: Austria
Another question. I do assume that also the 787 has the requirement to run at least 30 minutes on battery power, should all the generators drop offline. Now, seeing that a great number of systems that are pneumatically or hydraulically powered on other types run on electricity on the 787, I assume that the batteries need to provide not only power for the systems normally running on electricity, but on top also the cabin compressors and the anti-ice systems during the certified time - or will those systems (at least partially) fall victim to load shedding in such a situation? As these two systems tend to be fairly large consumers, I would assume that the batteries must either be immense or that there are some additional emergency batteries installed in the aircraft beside the 3 already mentioned ones?
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
From: Grassy Valley
Some of the power gained with the new architecture goes out the Fan as thrust. That is the seductive part of 'efficiency'. Moving numbers around on paper to accomplish 'savings' means an energy audit is a requirement. You cannot 'audit' your way into remarkable efficiency, and call it revolutionary. Neither can you cart around power in batteries "in Case".
Systemic. The Battery is a symptom.....
Systemic. The Battery is a symptom.....
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
From: Sussex and Asia
The graphic shows all of Boeing's 50 flagship 787 Dreamliners grounded resulting in shares in Boeing have fallen by 6.3 per cent over the last two days.
An estimated $2.7 billion has been wiped off the company's stock market value. Some airlines ( Qatar ) are already demanding some of their money back.
Grounding aircraft on this scale over safety concerns is rare. The last time this happened was in 1979, when DC-10s were grounded following a fatal crash.
The big problem for Boeing is restoring public confidence in the Dreamliner.
An estimated $2.7 billion has been wiped off the company's stock market value. Some airlines ( Qatar ) are already demanding some of their money back.
Grounding aircraft on this scale over safety concerns is rare. The last time this happened was in 1979, when DC-10s were grounded following a fatal crash.
The big problem for Boeing is restoring public confidence in the Dreamliner.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,115
Likes: 86
From: England
The battery problem could be of greater significance if it is related to a very serious flight test event.
Boeing had time and opportunity to investigate and rectify the flight test fault, thus if the current problems are similar this might suggest that either the fix doesn’t work or that the original problem was not sufficiently understood. Neither of which inspire the much needed confidence, nor aid any forecast for a quick resolution, particularly as there was a significant delay in the flight test programme due to the electrical fire.
Boeing had time and opportunity to investigate and rectify the flight test fault, thus if the current problems are similar this might suggest that either the fix doesn’t work or that the original problem was not sufficiently understood. Neither of which inspire the much needed confidence, nor aid any forecast for a quick resolution, particularly as there was a significant delay in the flight test programme due to the electrical fire.
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
From: UK
I think the big problem for Boeing is re-establishing confidence in Boeing.
Only last week I was commenting how cool Boeing and the FAA were after the first 3 incidents in a week (APU fire, fuel spillage and brake problems). They shrugged it off and called it "new airplane (sic) problems" and said the aircraft was "safe" and no investigations were required.
If I were Boeing I'd be examining each incident in detail as none of them were what I'd call "minor" problems, and the proximity of each was becoming farcical.
Last edited by ECAM_Actions; 17th January 2013 at 18:04.