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

FAA Grounds 787s

Wikiposts
Search
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

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 8th Apr 2013, 08:41
  #1561 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,648
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 15 Posts
Anyone noticed that after all the sudden Boeing PR hoopla at the time the test flights were authorised, it's all gone awfully quiet from Boeing again for some time.

Wasn't it all meant to be done and dusted by now, according to Boeing statements last month ?
WHBM is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2013, 08:49
  #1562 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This may be of interest..

"All Nippon Airways (ANA) said it plans to start re-training its Dreamliner
pilots in June in anticipation of a return of the airplanes to revenue
service ... but the pilots may initially fly more cargo than passengers.

The airline said that flying cargo on the airplanes before allowing them to
carry passengers would help ease public concerns about the safety of the
airplane, according to a report from Reuters. ANA has taken delivery of 17
of the airplanes, and says it has cancelled more than 3,600 flights through
the end of May.

The airline plans to start simulator training for its approximately 200
Dreamliner pilots in anticipation of gaining clearance to again fly the
aircraft. While the pilots have been undergoing monthly simulator training
while the airplanes have been grounded, ANA says the next phase will be
specifically geared towards a resumption of revenue flights. Sources
indicated that the training is set to begin in mid-April.

Boeing has already sent a several engineers to Japan so that they may begin
the process of installing the new battery systems as soon as they are
approved. ANA says it may take as long a a month to install the new
batteries on each of the airplanes. The airline did not offer any details of
what its own flight test schedule would entail."

Last edited by ITman; 8th Apr 2013 at 08:50.
ITman is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2013, 09:32
  #1563 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There seems to be a bit of contradiction

All Nippon Airways (ANA) said it plans to start re-training its Dreamliner pilots in June in anticipation of a return of the airplanes to revenue service ...
Then states

Sources indicated that the training is set to begin in mid-April.
TSR2 is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2013, 13:47
  #1564 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
allowing them to carry passengers would help ease public concerns about the safety of the airplane
The Japanese are the ultimate in picky consumers. Everything must be perfect or they won't buy it. If consumers anywhere will avoid a plane perceived to be deficient in some safety area, it will be Japan.
Mark in CA is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2013, 14:21
  #1565 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FlightPathOBN
Te LOT aircraft was already being used to test an 'engine enhancement'...that sounds like a fix to me, but who knows.
GE and RR have PiPs in progress for their respective engine families, so this might be testing some new Trent 1000 bits.
Kiskaloo is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2013, 15:45
  #1566 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: toofaraway
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GE and RR have PiPs in progress

Yep, PiPs come out when you squeeze the performance guarantees.
toffeez is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2013, 17:19
  #1567 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"All Nippon Airways (ANA) said it plans to start re-training its Dreamliner
pilots in June in anticipation of a return of the airplanes to revenue
service ... but the pilots may initially fly more cargo than passengers.

The airline said that flying cargo on the airplanes before allowing them to
carry passengers would help ease public concerns about the safety of the
airplane, according to a report from Reuters.
Move over MD-11...you have been replaced.
FlightPathOBN is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2013, 23:45
  #1568 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North Tyneside
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MWorth
I have to wonder if Boeing would not damage itself more by not disclosing what it has done. I think transparency is pretty important at this stage.
I agree. I'm only an occasional leisure flyer, and I'd booked some BA flights for September, before all this happened. I've since checked the flight schedules to make sure the planes aren't 787s. If they had been, I'd have changed the flights, and I'll be checking before booking any flights in future, as I won't be getting on a 787 any time soon, if ever.
Northern Flights is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2013, 11:25
  #1569 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Korea
Age: 62
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah, so Boeing have their internal problems, its a big company, whats new. Technically the battery improvements seem pretty sound. The nice new box looks strong enough to handle a thermo nuclear explosion. There are enough redundancies to cope with a battery failure. I just hope for Boeing's sake the failures are less frequent. The pax will be fine. I got a few flights lined up over the next few months. I will be checking the flight schedules to see if I can get on one of these nice birds.
Cool Guys is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2013, 11:34
  #1570 (permalink)  
A4

Ut Sementem Feeceris
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,459
Received 129 Likes on 28 Posts
Ok...I'll bite.

I just hope for Boeing's sake the failures are less frequent
They should be at or close to zero!!!!!!! 10's of batteries replaced in the first 12 months of service!!!!! WTF?

When I get on a "bird", I don't want to feel like I'm partaking in some sort of lottery I don't want to be in something which, even if it's in a "nice box", still has the potential to turn its batteries into a boiling mass of uselessness. Am I right in thinking they STILL haven't found the ROOT CAUSE?

A4
A4 is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2013, 11:44
  #1571 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK, sometimes USA
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well as a frequent flyer working in the aerospace industry, albeit not in a technical role, I'm not reassured by this fix. Boeing seem to have gone for a containment approach rather than actually fixing the fundamental problem of battery failure leading to shorting/smoke/fire whatever.

How is this meant to promote a positive safety culture to the paying public? Sure, a lot of passengers just want to get from A to B for a low price but, conversely, quite a lot don't like the idea of question marks over their aircraft when in the middle of an ocean.
airsmiles is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2013, 11:48
  #1572 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kent
Age: 61
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So will I (bite):

After many years (decades) of major companies, and various lobby groups, getting away with spinning (if they say something often enough people will believe it) I think people are starting to want to see the data themselves.

Personally, based on what I have seen (always possible the missing information is out there):
  • Root Cause: Boeing have NOT stated what it was == Boeing don't know
  • Battery Charging/Maintenance: By reducing the charge-discharge range they are HOPING it won't happen again
  • Fireproof Box: They are putting the battery in a fireproof box because the believe it WILL happen again

I also will be avoiding the 787 until it has a large number of flight hours without incident (and recommending friends and family do likewise).

I would like to think that the FAA will resist Boeing's lobbying and limit ETOPS until either:
  • They prove it's been fixed (i.e. state the root cause and how that has been addressed)
  • The 787 has amassed enough incident free hours to statistically prove it is safe
but I'm not holding my breath.

OC619
OpenCirrus619 is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2013, 11:54
  #1573 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Korea
Age: 62
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A4.

Your response was considerably more amicable than expected. Only 2 batteries experienced thermal runaway. The rest were replaced due to over discharging by ground crew. This was gone over in detail a few pages back. Boeing have not claimed to have found the root cause and they probably never will.
Cool Guys is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2013, 12:14
  #1574 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Korea
Age: 62
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They are putting the battery in a fireproof box because the believe it WILL happen again
This is true and out in the open. The batteries have a high energy density and they are not expected to be 100% reliable so according to the FAA they must have containment. The issue is the old box did not contain the thermal runaway when it occured twice. Also the frequency of battery failure was higher than expected (a lot higher)

Last edited by Cool Guys; 9th Apr 2013 at 12:22.
Cool Guys is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2013, 16:15
  #1575 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Boeing have not claimed to have found the root cause and they probably never will.
And this must be of major concern to many people.
TSR2 is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2013, 16:39
  #1576 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dont forget the electrical panel and mis-wired issues, and the avionics are powered UPS and backed up by another smaller Li battery.

In my view, the electrical design is so overly complicated, that they have lost control of it.
FlightPathOBN is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2013, 17:33
  #1577 (permalink)  

Usual disclaimers apply!
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Snoop

In my view, the electrical design is so overly complicated, that they have lost control of it.
Is it??
It's different I agree but still fairly straight forward!
gas path is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2013, 17:42
  #1578 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,200
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What is the weight penalty incurred because of the solution and how does it compares with an older more reliable battery?


Rwy in Sight
Rwy in Sight is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2013, 18:44
  #1579 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
gas path...

They still arent saying they know what caused the problem, ptential miswired systems, and the system re-routed and re-booted during the last emergency landing.

All points to a very complex system that they are having troubles tracing the issues.
FlightPathOBN is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2013, 00:18
  #1580 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool Guys
Boeing have not claimed to have found the root cause and they probably never will.
TSR2
And this must be of major concern to many people.
The NTSB and JTSB are the ones leading the investigations, not Boeing and the subs (who are just assisting) so it is up to them to identify the root cause.
Kiskaloo is offline  


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.