FAA Grounds 787s
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: up up up
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I said the box will be gone before too long because it's not the actual solution.
The solution is the BMU and changes to the charging cycle. The problem is that people look and see the box around the battery and think that the solution is all about containment when it isn't. I think the 787 battery proposals might even have looked more reliable if the box and vent were left off in the first place. The box is visible and easy to show photos of in the media. Unfortunately it draws attention from all the more important changes made inside the battery and to it's associated systems.
The solution is the BMU and changes to the charging cycle. The problem is that people look and see the box around the battery and think that the solution is all about containment when it isn't. I think the 787 battery proposals might even have looked more reliable if the box and vent were left off in the first place. The box is visible and easy to show photos of in the media. Unfortunately it draws attention from all the more important changes made inside the battery and to it's associated systems.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: back of beyond
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you on the importance of the changes to the charging cycle, and the relative unimportance of the box - see my post 1358 on this thread, about a month ago.
But the changes beg the question: why weren't they done before the aircraft was launched? What do we know now that wasn't known then, except that the batteries do catch fire? If the root cause of the problem really is unknown - and it all comes back to this statement - how do Boeing know that the changes are adequate?
Certainly playing with safety margins will reduce the probability of practically anything bad happening. But if you don't know what you're aiming for, the amount of reduction you actually get is just guesswork - suck it and see, as I admit to having done myself a number of times in an earlier life. I really sympathise with the Boeing, Thales and Yuasa engineers, as I have been there. But then again, I've never worked in anything as safety-critical as aviation.
But the changes beg the question: why weren't they done before the aircraft was launched? What do we know now that wasn't known then, except that the batteries do catch fire? If the root cause of the problem really is unknown - and it all comes back to this statement - how do Boeing know that the changes are adequate?
Certainly playing with safety margins will reduce the probability of practically anything bad happening. But if you don't know what you're aiming for, the amount of reduction you actually get is just guesswork - suck it and see, as I admit to having done myself a number of times in an earlier life. I really sympathise with the Boeing, Thales and Yuasa engineers, as I have been there. But then again, I've never worked in anything as safety-critical as aviation.
Paxing All Over The World
whatdoesthisbuttondo
The comments here are because, in the 21st century, no one trusts big business or government.
I recall an eminent Austrian mathematician (born 1919) saying: "In my country, we never believe anything until it is categorically denied by the government."
If this was the 1980s or 1990s, more people would believe Boeing and more people would expect Boeing to have resolved this during testing.
The failure appears to have come about because ground crews had not been fully trained in how to handle the a/c and THAT means that Boeing did not ground test enough - in such a way as to mimic operations.
It's all well and good to expect flight crew to run the ship pretty much as trained but ground crew have been handling most a/c the same way for years. If they have to change their process, then more attention was needed at the planning and testing stages.
I sit to be corrected.
Why don't EASA, the FAA, Boeing and other regulatory bodies know what some of you PPRuNers know?
I recall an eminent Austrian mathematician (born 1919) saying: "In my country, we never believe anything until it is categorically denied by the government."
If this was the 1980s or 1990s, more people would believe Boeing and more people would expect Boeing to have resolved this during testing.
The failure appears to have come about because ground crews had not been fully trained in how to handle the a/c and THAT means that Boeing did not ground test enough - in such a way as to mimic operations.
It's all well and good to expect flight crew to run the ship pretty much as trained but ground crew have been handling most a/c the same way for years. If they have to change their process, then more attention was needed at the planning and testing stages.
I sit to be corrected.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I missing a trick here?
Boeing now have what is, essentially, a new control/management system, connected to a new battery-pack,,,,,,they've managed to design, build, gear -up production and convince the Authority to certify it all for the 787 (despite the Authority having already dropped a major clanger first-time-around, so being extremely cautious to distance themselves from any fallout this time)..... All this in the space of a couple of months.
And yet they couldn't change the cell-chemistry to another Lithium variant which was "too new" at the time the 787 electrical system spec was "frozen" ? ( but which has several years of mainstream domestic and commercial use, now.
But they've been able to "unfreeze" the design to rectify the incendiary problem!
[QUOTE][Oh, they haven't because this forum is clearly full of gob****es whose only relevant technical expertise consists of being able to log onto an internet forum./QUOTE]
Let the postings speak for themselves! there are extremely well -qualified Engineers posting here.....obviously, you're not able to pick them out from the "gob****es"...but some of us can
Maybe the fools at Boeing's ivory tower don't peruse these threads, but I'd bet a pound to a pinch of sh!t that some of their current Engineers are monitoring, as well as the retired ones who have already made their prescence known.
Consultants would charge MILLIONS for the analysis and insight herein.
Again, Boeing Engineers are readily able to filter the diamonds from the dross, so don't insult the posters or the engineers, please.
Boeing now have what is, essentially, a new control/management system, connected to a new battery-pack,,,,,,they've managed to design, build, gear -up production and convince the Authority to certify it all for the 787 (despite the Authority having already dropped a major clanger first-time-around, so being extremely cautious to distance themselves from any fallout this time)..... All this in the space of a couple of months.
And yet they couldn't change the cell-chemistry to another Lithium variant which was "too new" at the time the 787 electrical system spec was "frozen" ? ( but which has several years of mainstream domestic and commercial use, now.
But they've been able to "unfreeze" the design to rectify the incendiary problem!
[QUOTE][Oh, they haven't because this forum is clearly full of gob****es whose only relevant technical expertise consists of being able to log onto an internet forum./QUOTE]
Let the postings speak for themselves! there are extremely well -qualified Engineers posting here.....obviously, you're not able to pick them out from the "gob****es"...but some of us can
Maybe the fools at Boeing's ivory tower don't peruse these threads, but I'd bet a pound to a pinch of sh!t that some of their current Engineers are monitoring, as well as the retired ones who have already made their prescence known.
Consultants would charge MILLIONS for the analysis and insight herein.
Again, Boeing Engineers are readily able to filter the diamonds from the dross, so don't insult the posters or the engineers, please.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Boeing Media release:
Sounds like compensation claims are a non-starter.
Boeing further expects that the 787 battery issue will have no significant impact to its 2013 financial guidance.
Boeing also has some insurance which may or may not cover the costs of the grounding:
Too Early to Know Cost of 787 Dreamliner Claims, Says Boeing's Insurer
Boeing Co. has some insurance in case its aircraft are grounded, but it is far too soon to say whether the problems with the 787 Dreamliner will lead to significant claims, the head of the planemaker’s lead insurer said on Wednesday.
A pool of four insurers stands behind Global Aerospace, the London-based lead underwriter of Boeing’s insurance program. The program includes a variety of coverage, such as manufacturer’s product liability and grounding liability.
Warren Buffett’s conglomerate, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., has a 27.875 percent share of the pool, second only to German reinsurer Munich Re Group AG, which has 49.445 percent. Japanese insurers Tokio Marine and Mitsui Sumitomo contribute the remainder.
The question now is what the grounding of the 787, already two weeks along with no end in sight, will actually cost.
“I can confirm that, in the aviation insurance market, we do provide some cover for so-called grounding liability. It’s a complex cover with varying triggers,” Global Aerospace Chief Executive Nick Brown said in an interview. “Really, it’s far too early to say whether it’s going to result in a claim to us, or what kind of magnitude.”
A pool of four insurers stands behind Global Aerospace, the London-based lead underwriter of Boeing’s insurance program. The program includes a variety of coverage, such as manufacturer’s product liability and grounding liability.
Warren Buffett’s conglomerate, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., has a 27.875 percent share of the pool, second only to German reinsurer Munich Re Group AG, which has 49.445 percent. Japanese insurers Tokio Marine and Mitsui Sumitomo contribute the remainder.
The question now is what the grounding of the 787, already two weeks along with no end in sight, will actually cost.
“I can confirm that, in the aviation insurance market, we do provide some cover for so-called grounding liability. It’s a complex cover with varying triggers,” Global Aerospace Chief Executive Nick Brown said in an interview. “Really, it’s far too early to say whether it’s going to result in a claim to us, or what kind of magnitude.”
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fizz57
Because the only way Boeing, Thales or GS Yuasa could get a cell to vent and for that vented electrolyte to catch fire was to massively overcharge the battery. So they focused their protection systems on the charging system to ensure that a battery could not be massively overcharged. The blue aluminum box was there to contain vented electrolyte should a cell somehow be overcharged and subsequently vent.
In JL8, what caught fire was the plastic inside the battery and that spread to the plastic connector outside the battery which charred the surrounding area. As B/T/G knew that a battery in thermal runaway could get very hot, IMO they should have originally used high-temperature plastics (as the new design does) and if they had, they might very well have saved themselves a grounding.
In NH692, electrolyte did leak out of the top of the blue box, but I wonder if that didn't happen on landing. One expects the pilots were hustling that bird down and if they landed hard, the vertical load might have splashed the electrolyte across the top and allowed it to spill out.
@cockney steve
I expect Boeing will change the cathode chemistry down the road, but chances are that chemistry change will change the design and/or properties of the battery. And if the battery design or properties of the battery, that will have to be tested and certified.
But the changes beg the question: why weren't they done before the aircraft was launched? What do we know now that wasn't known then, except that the batteries do catch fire? If the root cause of the problem really is unknown - and it all comes back to this statement - how do Boeing know that the changes are adequate?
In JL8, what caught fire was the plastic inside the battery and that spread to the plastic connector outside the battery which charred the surrounding area. As B/T/G knew that a battery in thermal runaway could get very hot, IMO they should have originally used high-temperature plastics (as the new design does) and if they had, they might very well have saved themselves a grounding.
In NH692, electrolyte did leak out of the top of the blue box, but I wonder if that didn't happen on landing. One expects the pilots were hustling that bird down and if they landed hard, the vertical load might have splashed the electrolyte across the top and allowed it to spill out.
@cockney steve
I expect Boeing will change the cathode chemistry down the road, but chances are that chemistry change will change the design and/or properties of the battery. And if the battery design or properties of the battery, that will have to be tested and certified.
Oh, they haven't because this forum is clearly full of gob****es whose only relevant technical expertise consists of being able to log onto an internet forum.
The 787 is a fantastic aircraft. I know some of you are opposed to it because it's made by Boeing but some of the nonsense in this thread is pathetic.
The 787 is a fantastic aircraft. I know some of you are opposed to it because it's made by Boeing but some of the nonsense in this thread is pathetic.
Speaking of relevant technical experience, do please remind me of the technical experience of the chief of the FAA, Michael Huerta. College degree in ..... politics. Ran some docks, the Salt Lake Olympics, and a Xerox computer company. In aviation since ..... 2010.
There's not a single person, amateur or professional, who has written here anything "because its made by Boeing". Have a look at what the first P in the name of this website stands for.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBC
Well for all of you who have been predicting the demise of The Boeing Company becasue of this 787 debacle, and that's the best way to describe it at this hour here is some morning news from the colonies.
Boeing profit up 20 percent despite 787 woes; affirms 2013 delivery and financial goals - The Washington Post
Boeing profit up 20 percent despite 787 woes; affirms 2013 delivery and financial goals - The Washington Post
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm assuming those figures don't include any compensation payouts to customers or battery re-design and re-fit costs which will presumably be put into the next quarter. ;-)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know what they say about the word "assume"? I would expect them to bury those values in future discounting of airplanes not yet on the order books. That way we will never know the full extent of the costs associated with this and of course the impact on future earnings will be hidden.
"Profit" is nothing, as any of us with a finance background will confirm. I'll bet all the complete but undelivered 787s are in the books at their full sales value as trade stock.
Have dealt with companies who were profitable every month -until they went bankrupt. Now I'm not saying that this is Boeing, but it just shows how far accounting profit is from reality.
Profit = opinion. CASH = fact. How much have they got in the bank compared to last year ? And you net off loans for that. Can anyone point me at Boeing's balance sheets for recent years ? Who are their auditors ? How long have they been their auditors ?
Have dealt with companies who were profitable every month -until they went bankrupt. Now I'm not saying that this is Boeing, but it just shows how far accounting profit is from reality.
Profit = opinion. CASH = fact. How much have they got in the bank compared to last year ? And you net off loans for that. Can anyone point me at Boeing's balance sheets for recent years ? Who are their auditors ? How long have they been their auditors ?
Last edited by WHBM; 24th Apr 2013 at 14:47.
PAXboy
Spot on!
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Spot on!
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone point me at Boeing's balance sheets for recent years ?
Total Assets 88,896,000 Total Liabilities 83,029,000
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing wrong with stating an opinion.
While throughout the testimony, Boeing/Thales/Yuasa all claim that they have done everything to prevent a thermal runway, yet it has already happened at least twice.
In looking at the battery box 'fix'. That containment is ridiculous, and as noted in the picture yesterday, the bolting is a disaster (and from my perspective, being installed incorrectly)
.
While throughout the testimony, Boeing/Thales/Yuasa all claim that they have done everything to prevent a thermal runway, yet it has already happened at least twice.
In looking at the battery box 'fix'. That containment is ridiculous, and as noted in the picture yesterday, the bolting is a disaster (and from my perspective, being installed incorrectly)
Correct install
..
incorrect install? (torque heads, not nutz)
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 24th Apr 2013 at 17:01.
You do know that first image is a perpex lid to illustrate the modification.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
incorrect install? (torque heads, not nutz)
Calm down!!!
The tech is merely hand threading the nylock nuts to get them started on the bolts.
He will then use a box-end wrench to hold the nut as he torques the bolt to the specified value.