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

FAA Grounds 787s

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

Old 25th Feb 2013, 00:49
  #981 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Plausible? are you mad?
Ex Cargo Clown is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2013, 01:49
  #982 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
inetdog: The official explanation is that the Li battery can deliver enough power for several starts of the APU and then be quickly recharged again once the APU or other power source is running. NiCd's higher internal resistance makes very rapid recharging more problematic.
I've been poking around trying to learn which of those "facts" about various batteries are true, without much luck. The wikipedia article is not very satisfying, and I don't know the merits of this page Lithium-based Batteries Information. The table would have you believe that LiCobalt is a very poor performer compared to later Li technology. It would be interesting to know Boeing's supplier's reason for that choice.

On the different topic of catching the fuselage on fire, early on I posted a link to a 2007 paper produced by U of Maryland (iirc) for the FAA which showed that Boeing's composite fuselage recipe was well-behaved in that regard. Perhaps someone has revisited that effort, given the embarassment with battery engineering.
poorjohn is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2013, 07:37
  #983 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,631
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 14 Posts
All Nippon cancels the 787 from the next three months of schedules

BBC News - Dreamliner: Japan's ANA cancels more Boeing 787 flights

Given that Boeing seems about to announce they've "fixed it", this is interesting timing for such an announcement. Is someone in Japan sending a message ?
WHBM is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2013, 08:18
  #984 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: S 51 N
Age: 84
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
common horsesense ??

I´d rather like to say that the Japanese have kept their sense of responsibility.
It appears more and more to show that some people at Boeing gambled with high stakes, observed in patience by the certification administration.
The socalled"final fix" - as it it is known untill now- is nothing but a continuation of endanger the lifes of innocent passengers and crews.
Hope that strange behavior comes soon and finally to a screeming end.
Annex14 is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2013, 09:13
  #985 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: toofaraway
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I still can't believe that Boeing, once top dog, can be that stupid.

They have been handed enormous good luck: they did not have to drag the debris of ANA flight 692 out of Japan's Inland Sea.

Their CEO will earn his salary if he insists that a durable safe fix be found because one fire-related fatal accident could kill the program.
.

Last edited by toffeez; 25th Feb 2013 at 11:09.
toffeez is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2013, 09:48
  #986 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
not kill the program - it would kill the Company
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2013, 10:09
  #987 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,631
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by toffeez
Their CEO will earn his salary if he insists that a durable safe fix be found .......
Have any Boeing CEOs had that technical understanding and wisdom since the days of Phil Condit ?
WHBM is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2013, 10:21
  #988 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sad.
For me, and I guess for the average educated pax , any "temporary" solution that does not eliminate the fire possibilities in that aircraft will not be acceptable.
Fire in a traditional aircraft is already a major issue, but any form of fire anywhere in a composite aircraft will get me even more worried.
I have seen a video of a composite ( small ) aircraft burn , it is not a pretty sight. The speed of propagation is impressive ,but the smoke, not the fire is the most deadly part.
As we sadly learned in the Dusseldorf airport fire a few years back, some composite fumes can kill you in just one breath . The bodies were intact.
In other words, even with a small contained fire ,the structure might survive, but not the pax .
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2013, 10:49
  #989 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A great thread indeed.

Even if a short term fix/containment of problem battery can be agreed with Boeing and the FAA, many or most airlines may not elect to fly the 787 in this state.

Just too many issues to deal with using the short term fix/containment, if a battery fails in flight it will not be available to do the things it was put there for so could make many diversions and much more press coverage etc etc etc !!!

Talk of 100/150 787 batts have been replaced up to this point and the recent events in the press, plus any other events that may not be in the public domain, if the 787 goes back in service without the root cause fixed and has any more serious events with paying passengers on board, history may show it would of been better and cheaper for the 787 to spend longer grounded.

My guess with so much info coming out about how Boeing and the FAA got the 787 certified in the first place, the "A350 plan B" type deal will be the one that gets the 787 back in service.

The cost to the 787 project will be a monster, but as previous posters have mentioned, it could of been much worse.

Good luck to the Engineers trying to understand and fixing the issues.
Joetom is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2013, 11:35
  #990 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@Volume... there are NOT 8 CELLS there are 24!

each "cell"is 3 sub-cells in parallell. These could easily be connected together by attaching each sub-cell to it's main cell-buses with appropriately low-melting point fusible straps....thus any individual cell that went defunct would not compromise the output voltage of the battery-unit.- it would, however, limit current-drawboth safe continuous and peak.

@ Machinbird...As already said by Momo....you can't credit engineers who merely make a gigantic Kludge to sidestep a fundamental problem.

@ Wiley B... they'll probably point the vent-pipes aft and sell it as "emergency auxiliary thrust"


@ Inetdog.."several starts" NO!!!! there has to be a half-hour cooling-period between APU runs, therefore one start and it recharges it's battery before shutting down. ('cos the batteries charge real quick(when they're not locked out because the start took the voltage too low )

SEVERAL ATTEMPTED STARTS may be a different issue and one would question the Captain's decision to go with a dodgy APU.


I suggested Ceramic insulation a long while ago. the general concensus is that wound cylindrical cells are more robust. ceramic pota with screw-on ceramic lids could contain each sub-cell and individual cell temp and voltage-monitors the main cell-casing , similar construction. tails from sub-cells in suitable low melting alloy.

whole battery would thus maintain it's integrity and fulfill an emergency power role until all 3 individual sib-cells in a cell-pack had disconnected themselves, thus open-circuiting the whole battery..

Oh, Wait!! we" only" have 16,000 USD per battery , to play with...thermistors are HOW MUCH? Microchips /CPU's are HOW MUCH....Memory -HOW MUCH

And 48 ceramic pots per aircraft....well, it'd cost MEGABUCKS to make a few thousand a year, 'cos they'd be very special ceramic, dontcha know
cockney steve is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2013, 11:36
  #991 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,631
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 14 Posts
It does look like the two major Japanese users of the 787 have ganged up on Boeing this last weekend. In addition to the All Nippon statement, the chairman of Japan Air Lines made an interview with CNN on the same day which really puts the knife in to their longstanding relationship with Boeing. Interesting to view the video.

JAL Chairman: 100% Reliance on Boeing 'Abnormal'
WHBM is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2013, 11:50
  #992 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely the only way you can certify "The Box" is to push the batteries to failure and prove no damage?
Ex Cargo Clown is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2013, 12:38
  #993 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
annex14,

the Japanese have kept their sense of responsibility
I agree. ANA and JAL were the first to (independently) ground their fleet of 787, before the FAA or Boeing took any initiative. ANA doesn't yet seem convinced by Boeings "quick fix". And now JAL chairman Kazuo Inamori stated "We should have been much, much more careful. The only consolation is that there has been no grave accident".

Boeing definitely got one thing right with the 787 - their choice of launch customers. Maybe Boeing could even learn something from them. I believe the Japanese have done a lot to keep up the public's faith in aviation, and handled this unfortunate situation in a very professional way.
deptrai is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2013, 13:01
  #994 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Korea
Age: 62
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wow, it sure is easy to kick someone when they are on the ground. Sure, some people at Boeing have screwed up, but they are paying for it financially and with their reputation and fortunately not with lives. However there are many great things about this plane. I don’t have an issue with the battery box except it’s a little late. It should have been in place years ago. The issue is getting the battery fire rate down to that 1 in 10 million figure that was quoted earlier. It seems like Boeing are working on this, just the specifics have not been released.

I think we are seeing a natural progression here. The energy density of batteries has always been low compared with fossil fuels which is why we have never seen electric powered cars or planes to any degree. For the same reason there has never been any real danger from devices such as a lead acid or nicad batteries. Now fuel prices are rising there is more incentive for battery manufacturers to invest in battery technologies so we are seeing the energy densities increase. I suspect it won’t be too far in the future when we see the energy densities of batteries actually get higher than that of fossil fuels. Then we will see electric cars truly competing with their fossil fuel counterparts and we may even see electric powered jet engines, ie the fans are propelled by an electric motor rather than a turbine. I am sure there will be some serious containment issues in those batteries.

The Boeing guys are pushing the boundaries of technology, just like Airbus and many other companies have. The Concorde was sure pushing the boundaries, as was the AB FBW. Boeing have screwed up a little here but I suspect it will be a tempory setback. I am sure they will live another day to release some other new technology in the future and it wouldn’t surprise me if they make the same mistakes again.

Last edited by Cool Guys; 25th Feb 2013 at 13:04.
Cool Guys is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2013, 13:42
  #995 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wow, it sure is easy to kick someone when they are on the ground.
If they were flying there would be no reason to kick them

Customers expected to buy aircraft that fly, and in the current situation, some barking at Boeing is to be expected. I don't see much drama in that, and I concur that this is just a temporary setback. Boeing has 890 firm orders, airlines love the promise of lower fuel burn, and in the long run, the 787 will deliver exactly that (just to clarify: when it flies).

Last edited by deptrai; 25th Feb 2013 at 13:53.
deptrai is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2013, 14:00
  #996 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Boeing are taking a beating partly because the planes aren't flying for a damn good reason, the other issue is Boeing's perceived lack of clear oversight across the design/implementation.

Outsourcing isn't a bad thing, Airbus has various components made, shipped and assembled on site (And this isn't an Airbus v Boeing thing, I'm just comparing apples with apples).

This is Boeing's first attempt and I do accept that they did push the boundaries with the plane which to all intents and purposes is superb, however the battery issue is serious and Boeing's proposed fix is a patch, not the fix that most folk are looking for.

I might be wrong, but I don't believe that customer confidence will be fully restored until a proper fix is implemented.

Folk keep banging on about 890 firm orders, yes, but that was BEFORE the problem; ANA and JAL have been biding their time and have spoken out now, coincidence?
No-one is naive enough to believe that other carriers aren't considering their options.

Last edited by Momoe; 25th Feb 2013 at 14:01.
Momoe is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2013, 14:43
  #997 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I just read this article from Chemical & Engineering News 2007: Burning Batteries | December 17, 2007 Issue - Vol. 85 Issue 51 | Chemical & Engineering News

probably nothing new to experts, but it confirms that it may be difficult to find a root cause for failures:

One fact that emerged is that it's tough to get solid statistics on the number of lithium-ion batteries that apparently explode or catch fire without having been set off by abusive actions. Unprovoked battery explosions are known as "field failures," and industry experts say such events are rare. They estimate that between one in 1 million and one in 10 million lithium-ion batteries fail that way.

Not only are the statistics of field failures difficult to pin down, but the fundamental mechanisms that trigger the hazardous events are also challenging to elucidate. For one thing, field failures are difficult to reproduce and study in a lab because they happen so infrequently.

Another difficulty in analyzing the causes of spontaneous failures is that batteries that fail in the field come from lots that have already passed abuse and reliability tests, and they appear to have worked normally for a while. Those batteries simply don't give researchers a clue that trouble is brewing inside of them. Furthermore, when one of them catches fire or explodes, not enough battery material may be left behind to determine what went wrong.

Last edited by deptrai; 25th Feb 2013 at 15:06.
deptrai is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2013, 15:31
  #998 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"It does look like the two major Japanese users of the 787 have ganged up on Boeing this last weekend."

ganged up?? They've invested hundred of of million dollars in something they have to park and may not get to use - I think they have a right to say something

and Boeing should count themselves lucky - if it had been Ryanair or Mr Al Baker at Qatar A/w the airwaves would be really humming
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2013, 17:09
  #999 (permalink)  
ImageGear
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Early Launch Customers?

In my experience of teaching Japanese Engineers in the USA many years ago, and then working with them to design large vector/scalar computer systems, I was very, very impressed by their commitment to provide the best possible product to their customers. The Japanese culture of what constitutes acceptable design and production risk was then infinitely more refined than anything contemplated by the U.S manufacturers.

Issues of this type, which appear to be relatively minor and therefore tolerable to an early launch customer in Europe or the West would be rejected out of hand as totally inappropriate for a Japanese customer. In the event of a failure of this magnitude, the loss of face and deep shame suffered by the most Senior Japanese Executives may ultimately result in a final but more honourable outcome.

So to find these serious electrical issues occurring in such a high profile and valuable product makes me wonder to what extent the Supplier's Japanese Engineering teams and the Customer's Engineering teams were able to authorise design and production acceptance without prejudice when even to a layman with a laptop the battery systems would have been subject to the most intense scrutiny.

Has the Japanese culture of perfection, performance, reliability and maintainability changed so much in recent years that this type of issue could be overlooked? This aside from the FAA's position which I associate more appropriately with the U.S's position on the acceptance of risk.

..and yes, we also accepted that when the pre-release version of the product went to Japan a significant amount of re-engineering could be necessary to bring it up to the Japanese specification and this was understood.

Last edited by ImageGear; 25th Feb 2013 at 18:01.
 
Old 25th Feb 2013, 17:33
  #1000 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: toofaraway
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ImageGear

Once upon a time a young version of me said in a meeting with Japanese that something we were proposing was "good enough".

I was swiftly told that for the Japanese it's either right or wrong. I never said it again.
toffeez is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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.