FAA Grounds 787s

[Momoe]

Kiskaloo,

agreed that the 787 battery issues are currently being investigated by NTSB and JTSB, the implication in your post is that Boeing (and the subs) are confident that their fix will be approved and the bird will fly - Regardless of any subsequent findings by the above mentioned agencies?

[Goddamnslacker]

Bandaid Fix

I think if the FAA allow the 787 to fly with this band aid fix, since they don't know what the original cause of the battery failing is fine, as long as the 787 fly's Non ETOPS until they find the cause...
To put the aircraft back with 180 mins ETOPS is an accident waiting to happen and something the FAA or the NTSB cannot allow...

[bubbers44]

United has aready announced June 10 service of the 787. I guess the FAA is happy with the battery fix. It seems like a fine airplane so expect it to do well. Boeing has never made a bad plane so I am sure this one will do well also.

[Nieuport28]

IMO, 180 ETOPS May 31st.

[ozaub]

Whenever the 787 eventually returns to service I want FAA and/or Boeing to publicly explain how the improved battery installation meets each and every one of the Special Certification Conditions; which I first listed at #110. No weasel words please. Remember too that FAA assured ALPA that containment alone was not an acceptable way to meet SCCs.

[Walnut]

Everyone seems more worried about the Apu battery and whether this will reduce the a/c's ETOPS capability. However the main battery will not be found in the MEL, ie its a no go. In almost 20K of commercial flying (almost all Boeing) I never experienced a main battery failure, so lets hope they have got this one right, remember a burnt battery does not produce an output.

[airsmiles]

Apart from my concern about the Boeing/FAA/NTSB/JTSB not finding the source of the electrical problems, was it the FAA who certified the original electrical system as safe? If so, am I to trust them that they've properly assessed the new fixes as safe this time?

I'm savvy enough to understand past problems when new aircraft have been introduced (e.g. A380 wing cracks) and understand these things happen at times, but I see an electrical system failure rather than a specific component/assembly failure with the 787 that hasn't been fully addressed. The certification process that allowed the aircraft into service with this technology also raises question marks.

I just get this feeling there's enormous pressure to get the 787 back into service by whatever means and Boeing and the certification bodies haven't done enough to demonstrate a properly researched root cause analysis and systen re-design. When people ask me my opinion on the 787 I have to say don't fly over water on it and preferably not all.

I love the Boeing products like any other but I've never felt about a new aircraft the way I do about the 787.

[Northern Flights]

Apologies if this has been raised earlier in this very long thread, but as a matter of interest, if any crew shared the concerns that some people have expressed here, could they request not to be allocated to the 787? If not, would they be subject to discipline/dismissal if they refused to work on it?

[toffeez]

Refusing to fly the Dreadliner

I guess they'd either be ignored or invited to give a presentation to flight safety management explaining what they know that the FAA doesn't.
.

[Kiskaloo]

Momoe

(Kiskaloo) agreed that the 787 battery issues are currently being investigated by NTSB and JTSB, the implication in your post is that Boeing (and the subs) are confident that their fix will be approved and the bird will fly - Regardless of any subsequent findings by the above mentioned agencies?

I expect the regulatory agencies to approve the 787's return to revenue service with the current suite of modifications made.

That being said, once the investigative agencies do identify a root cause, I fully expect additional Airworthiness Directives will be issued to address them.


airsmiles

Apart from my concern about the Boeing/FAA/NTSB/JTSB not finding the source of the electrical problems, was it the FAA who certified the original electrical system as safe? If so, am I to trust them that they've properly assessed the new fixes as safe this time?

After JL8 and before NH692, the FAA announced they planned to perform a comprehensive review of the 787's electrical system and their certification of it.

[Goddamnslacker]

ETOPS

Well I cant see how they can allow the aircraft back at 180 minutes ETOPS, if the Main battery fails or even the APU battery fails, a fire supposedly contained and 3 hours from any airport!!!
No the 787 if allowed to fly should be Non ETOPS to gather more data and monitoring to see if the incident reoccurs...A minimum of 6 Months!

[Finn47]

Talking about "pressure" to get the 787s back in the air, here´s a quote from the latest Seattle Times article:

ANA and Japan Airlines should be first in line for the battery retrofits, though for those airlines the timing must also await approval from Japan’s Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB).
Typically the Japanese regulator, like aviation regulators worldwide, will simply go with whatever decision is made by the FAA.
Given the serious financial pressure on ANA in particular — it’s had 17 Dreamliners grounded for approaching three months — an industry source in Japan, who asked not to be identified, said the JCAB will likely quickly follow the FAA’s lead.

787 testing done, Boeing ready to quickly retrofit fleet | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times

[s e t h]

i guess if they eventually manage to tame the batteries to the extent they are tamed in laptops and mobile phones etc then there is a chance that battery failure could be rare eventually...coupled with the box maybe they will prove safe enough.

obviously the pressure to get several billion dollars worth of assets creating revenue again rather than depreciating is massive.

[peter we]

For Immediate Release

March 12, 2013
Contact: Laura J. Brown
Phone: [phone]

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today approved the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company's certification plan for the redesigned 787 battery system, after thoroughly reviewing Boeing’s proposed modifications and the company’s plan to demonstrate that the system will meet FAA requirements. The certification plan is the first step in the process to evaluate the 787’s return to flight and requires Boeing to conduct extensive testing and analysis to demonstrate compliance with the applicable safety regulations and special conditions.

“This comprehensive series of tests will show us whether the proposed battery improvements will work as designed,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We won’t allow the plane to return to service unless we’re satisfied that the new design ensures the safety of the aircraft and its passengers.”

The FAA will approve the redesign only if the company successfully completes all required tests and analysis to demonstrate the new design complies with FAA requirements. The FAA’s January 16, 2013 airworthiness directive, which required operators to temporarily cease 787 operations, is still in effect, and the FAA is continuing its comprehensive review of the 787 design, production and manufacturing process.

Press Release – FAA Approves Boeing 787 Certification Plan


I doesn't say the battery improvements will allow the 787 to return to service.

The firebox is change to the 787 design and doesn't mean it will fly because of it.

The 787 is a long way from return to service, January 2014 I'd say.

[ozaub]

The only vaguely comparable grounding was when British and French authorities rightly suspended Concorde's C of A, after Paris accident. It took 14 months to lift the suspension. Boeing/FAA will get 787 back in the air faster but not as fast as some hope. BTW FAA should have suspended 787's C of A as soon as it became obvious that the plane did not meet certification requirements. It was not legally appropriate to use an AD.

[cockney steve]

BTW FAA should have suspended 787's C of A as soon as it became obvious that the plane did not meet certification requirements. It was not legally appropriate to use an AD.

that there's an indication that Politics and Big Business have an undue influence on the Regulatory authorities....see also the comments re- Japanese Authorities "rubberstamping" CAA's decision.

[ozaub]

Concerning "rubber stamping" of foreign approvals, long ago major authorities like Australian DCA usually sent a small team of technical specialists to "validate" foreign certifications. We probed critical topics that might have been glossed over by the home authority. We always found deficiencies; usually minor but sometimes whole regs had been overlooked. We always came away with intricate knowledge of the new planes that guided our regulatory efforts for years ahead. Then our political masters asked Qantas if it was worthwhile! One of the reason the practice stopped was because everyone else did it; up until nobody else did it. Now most authorities just wields a rubber stamp. I think the Chinese still do the job properly and interestingly Chinese approval was still pending when 787 was grounded.

[Kiskaloo]

The JTSB did require both NH and JL to operate the 787 commercially for one year before they would authorize the airlines to operate ETOPS-180 missions (I believe at EIS they were ETOPS-60 and then it was improved in stages based on operational data).

At the time of JL8 and NH692, the JTSB had approved both carriers for ETOPS-180.

[inetdog]

Kiskaloo, does this temporary loss of certification (or at least loss of confidence) restart the clock, or has the time been put in and only approval is needed?

[Volume]

No the 787 if allowed to fly should be Non ETOPS to gather more data

To gather relevant data this time (contrary to the test standards obviously not able to duplicate the issue and real in-service conditions), the 787 should be operated as it is intended to do, as a point-to-point long range aircraft connecting totally different climate zones. Gatering data with limited operation is no real data. So there is a catch 22... If we operate as intended and have another failure, this is dangerous. If we operate with limitations and have no failure, it does not tell us how the aircraft would behave in real operation, so this is dangerous as well once we clear the aircraft to operate unlimited.