FAA Grounds 787s

[Cool Guys]

It seems like a reasonble fix to me. I will be flying on it the first chance I get.

[airsmiles]

It's more of a patch-up for economic reasons than a true fix though isn't it. A true fix resolves an identified problem, which doesn't apply in the case of the 787. The reality is that, if they waited until they did find the cause, many airlines and Boeing might be bankrupted.

I fully understand why they've gone down the route they have but I seriously hope there isn't another similar problem, otherwise the ultimate cost to all concerned will be considerably higher than this 'fix'.

For me, the aviation safety culture has changed now and I'm happy to wait to fly the 787 and see what happens over the next year or two.

[cockney steve]

@ inetdog Thanks for pointing out (what should have been) the blindingly obvious.....apart from a bit of heat-insulation in between the cells, they've simply "bunded" the original design enclosure...albeit they'll have to have made it bigger to allow for the increased bulk/spacing of the individual cells.

What a clever idea to keep it looking just like the old one now we wait till an old-type gets fitted by mistake.... but hopefully the reinforced firebox Bund has been designed so the old units don't fit in, so eliminating that possibility.

[1965 BEA]

Quote from Boeing Media

"The improved battery system includes design changes to both prevent and isolate a fault should it occur. In addition, improved production, operating and testing processes have been implemented. The new steel enclosure system is designed to keep any level of battery overheating from affecting the airplane or even being noticed by passengers."

Ignorance is bliss.

[Cool Guys]

They identified and resolved one of the problems. The old containment box did not contain a thermal runaway. They seem to have fixed this one quite nicely.

[Speed of Sound]

cockney steve

I assume that the 'old units' will be stripped down and the good LVP cells re-used or sent back to Yuasa.

Also, even if they did fit the new containment box the monitoring on the new batteries is different and this would show up as soon as it is plugged in.

SoS

[AmericanFlyer]

Japan's ANA to conduct up to 200 Boeing 787 test flights

Japan's ANA to conduct up to 200 Boeing 787 test flights: sources | Reuters

[barit1]

What a clever idea to keep it looking just like the old one now we wait till an old-type gets fitted by mistake....

DC-10 lower hold door, anyone?

[Spooky 2]

This is and remains one of PPrunes most entertaining threads. I always thought th ignorance was in the media, but I guess not.

[StoneyBridge Radar]

Cargo flights. Some might say the best and safest thing for the Dreamliner.

Didn't the MD-11 go the same way...?

[Heathrow Harry]

god help them if there is another battery fire in the next 12 months.................

the meeja will kill them

[Carbon Bootprint]

the meeja will kill them

More than a few Ppruners will likely be less than kind about it as well.

[peter we]

god help them if there is another battery fire in the next 12 months.................

With this 'solution' the passengers will never know about its so the problem will not exist.

[gcal]

Surely it is either safe or it is not safe.
The first flies, the second shouldn't.

[peter we]

That step will be followed by a short waiting period to allow the public to submit comments. Boeing officials, however, believe the comment period on the superseding AD could be closed out within the five-day window it takes to install the battery kits,

FAA clears 787s to re-enter service within a week

Surely it is either safe or it is not safe.

The imperative is a return to commercial operation as soon as possible.

The old containment box did not contain a thermal runaway. They seem to have fixed this one quite nicely.

They have, but what caused the thermal runaway? Have they fixed that? is this mysterious, unknown issue a potential issue in itself? Whats the probability one or both batteries will fail at the same time?

How can you be 100% (1000%??) sure about the safety of an aircraft when you don't even know the cause of the not-fire?

[kilomikedelta]

I fail to see why everyone is assuming that getting the 787 back in the air for commercial service is an engineering issue. Boeing's (the marketing company) only fiduciary interest is to its shareholders. The annoyance of airworthiness certification is easily dealt with by reminding the FAA (who are political appointees) upon which side of their bread is buttered by members of Congress whose electorate have employment related to the 787 and therefore future votes. Chicago is well aware that the stock market has a shorter memory than the families of a few dead passengers and crew.

[ironbutt57]

U.S. NTSB reviewing whistleblower claims in 787 case | Reuters

Maybe they should have given these claims a bit more thought...

[Northern Flights]

Must be nice to have customers that participate in testing.

And if it is 'just' for PR purposes, was that aspect lost on Boeing?

[RetiredBA/BY]

"The 787 offers " Unrivalled passenger comfort" says Boeing, clearly they have not flown on the 380. Incredibly smooth and a quietness that is just amazing. The first time I flew on the 380, when climb power was selected it sounded as if the engines had all failed !! Just why do they make such claims. ??

[LNIDA]

Probably because of the much lower cabin altitude in the 787 than other similar aircraft in the cruise, its said to reduce dehydration and so called jet lag, but your right the 380 is very quiet