FAA Grounds 787s

[WHBM]

Michael O'Leary's "it's regulatory crap" comment on the 787 issue

Ryanair CEO: Boeing 787 Problems 'Regulatory Crap' - Yahoo! Finance

[Mark in CA]

Excuse me if I missed a post that discussed this, but what exactly are these two Boeing test flights going to test? Will they just confirm that the changes to the system work as planned, or with they also induce various failures to test how the new system reacts? And if the latter, how far along will that go? Will they actually test if the containment box and venting system work as designed in flight?

[green granite]

Will they actually test if the containment box and venting system work as designed in flight?

That would be easy enough to do, empty container with some dye in it in the rear compartment, with an inlet valve. Pressurise it with liquid nitrogen and check the valve releases at the right pressure and it vents satisfactorily. It would mean no APU though which would I would have thought be perfectly acceptable for a test flight.

[SMT Member]

Excuse me if I missed a post that discussed this, but what exactly are these two Boeing test flights going to test?

It's not two, three or more flight "tests". It's one single flight. What they hope to prove is anyone's guess, unless that is they take the kite somewhere over the mid-Pacific, say 330 minutes away from a suitable runway, and deliberately over-charge the battery to induce thermal runaway conditions. Somehow I don't that's going to happen though.

[ITman]

Boeing publicity again... we flew the bird no problems...

Sorry I cannot buy into this one test flight story..

[Finn47]

There might be two test flights after all. Quote from yesterday´s Reuters article:

The testing regimen set by the FAA requires one flight test. But Boeing plans to conduct two flights: One for its own purposes and a second to gather data to submit for FAA approval, according to the sources, who spoke on condition that they not be named.

Boeing plans 787 battery test flights for end of week: sources | Reuters

[toffeez]

They need to test the resistance of the composite structure to a red hot firebox.

Go out to mid-Pacific, light up the firebox, and fly home. Volunteers?

[Kerosene Kraut]

Shouldn't they rename it the Drainliner?

[FlightPathOBN]

more fodder...

U.S. officials rebuked Boeing for comments its executives made at a media briefing in Tokyo earlier this month on plans to get the grounded 787 Dreamliner flying again.

Boeing faulted by NTSB for comments on 787 fix | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times

[Cool Guys]

Volunteers?

I will be flying on it the first chance I get. It seems like a great plane. The nice new box will contain any fire that does occur. Afterall, all the fixes will not prevent a fire from occuring, they should just reduce the chance of occurance to at least 1 in 10,000,000.

[fc101]

1 in 10 million....didn't NASA managers give those odds for the Space Shuttle exploding? Remind me again what the odds were of a battery fire in the first place.

Quoting odds like this is nonsense

[FlightPathOBN]

Here we go with the odds thing again....

[avogadro]

NTSB sending clear signal to Boeing

Bean counters should not rush into solutions for the sake of airplane image or whatso ever is their goal. I believe NTSB officials with safety minded is calling for bat system modification guided by rootcause of incident. I quote from a japan newspaper.
"Mr. Sinnett said that all of their testing and analysis has concluded the only way a thermal runaway could occur is through overcharging. Boeing’s original designs have four layers of protection against overcharging. A review of data stored on the flight data recorder showed that the system had been “properly charged.”
i am quoting this because Boeing and his beancounters seem to divert from the objective: SAFETY FIRST
1 did thermal runaway really occur?
2 is the thermal runaway due to overcharging?
3 does "system properly charged" = no thermal runaway?
in the mood to get the airplane quickly back into air some hints for solution are being lost. I believe thorough investigations will definitely pave the way for getting the dreamliner back into service for comfort and safe flights.
in case I mistakenly judge please feel free to comment on this. thanks...

[G&T ice n slice]

Anyone any signals from anywhere as to whether the aircraft & associated risk is currently insurable, even with the "firebox" ?

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by G&T ice n slice

Anyone any signals from anywhere as to whether the aircraft & associated risk is currently insurable, even with the "firebox" ?

Interesting. Rumour had it this was indeed one of the things that did the MD-11 in for major passenger operators. It was, of course, all fully certified by the FAA and everything, but amazingly quickly ended up as a cargo hauler, and there was a lot of asset value lost by the initial large purchasers who prematurely retired it.

[FlightPathOBN]

"Boeing is going to reduce outsourcing, they have learned their lesson"

"The 787 production rate is planned to double from five jets per month to 10 per month by year end."

"Boeing said Friday it will lay off some 800 machinists by the end of this year as workforce needs on its newest jet programs, the 787 Dreamliner and 747-8 jumbo jet, are reduced.
Company spokesman Doug Alder said that other reductions will be made through attrition so that the total number of positions cut this year will be between 2,000 and 2,300."

Boeing plans to layoff machinists | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times

[EEngr]

FlightPathOBN:

U.S. officials rebuked Boeing for comments

It looks like Boeing is trying to mount a PR initiative against the NTSB's cautious approach. After all, its the FAA that will have to give the thumbs up/down on flight resumption. The NTSB's input is advisory. So if they are taking the cautious approach by saying 'We're not sure', Boeing is saying, 'We know. Trust us.'

[Cool Guys]

Here we go with the odds thing again

I'm not sure what the issue is with probabilities. Do you think mechanical and electrical devices are perfect? They have a zero chance of failure? Unfortunately this is not true. This is the case for all devices us humans make, including nuclear power stations. There could be another nuclear accident tomorrow, but it is highly unlikely. This is life. This is why we have contingencies and redundancies. If this were not the case every plane would have just have one engine. If there is a 1 in 10 million chance of a blade failure knocking out an engine there is a 1 in 10 trillion chance of a twin engine blade failure. This means the chances are so low that there will probably never be a twin engine blade failure within the time period that humans inhabit earth but unfortunately this is an over simplification. Even though the chances of a twin engine blade failure is so high the chances of hitting a flock of grease and knocking out both engines is probably less than 1 in 10 trillion, but all is not lost, if you hit a flock of geese there is a chance you can still make it safely to the ground with no engines.

Unfortunately with the 787 the chance of battery thermal run away was considerably less than 1 in 10 million (do not know if this is a real probability, it is just what I have read on this thread) It appears the actual chances of a battery failure were down to 1 in 100 thousand. and it seems the contingency for a battery failure, i.e. the containment box had a probability of failure of 100% (in the event of a battery fire) which makes the possibility of a battery fire bringing down the plane an unacceptably high risk which is why the FAA grounded the bird. Hopefully Boeing can get these probabilities back up to where they belong, i.e. 1 in 10 million for the batteries and perhaps 1 in 100 million for the box so the chances of a battery failure and a box failure at the same time bringing down the 787 is so remote that it will probably never occur during the life of the plane.

[inetdog]

Cool Guys:

Even though the chances of a twin engine blade failure is so high the chances of hitting a flock of grease [sic] and knocking out both engines is probably less than 1 in 10 trillion, ...

A lot of people do take the easy way out and say that if the chance of one engine failing it 1 in a million then the chance of two engines failing is 1 in a trillion. That does not take into account that whatever improbable occurrence caused one failure is very likely to cause a second failure at the same time. (As in the flock of geese.)
The meltdown of the US financial derivatives market was not predicted because the SEC statistical experts evaluating the risk assumed that the chances of one mortgage defaulting was independent of the chance of another mortgage defaulting. Instead common causal factors hit them all at once.

[PAXboy]

FlightPathOBN
"Boeing is going to reduce outsourcing, they have learned their lesson" (source ?)

The problem is, I suggest, that they did NOT learn the lesson.

Outsorcing is very complex and requires VERY good managers. Airbus Industrie (the first company name) started in 1970, so they have decades of experiences of making it work.

Boeing started large scale outsourcing with a complex new development and, it appears, made a series of mistakes. If they now pull away from outsourcing, they will have learnt nothing. They had the chance to learn from others and implement outsourcing and development slowly - perhaps with the 73NG range or a new 76 - but they chose to go the fast route and have failed. No one need be surprised.

I am not a particularly advocate of outsourcing but the fault is not outsourcing - but Boeing management and the company will be paying for this for a decade.