FAA Grounds 787s

[inetdog]

poorjohn:

Changing topic quickly: it would be interesting if a third-party STC'ed a replacement using e.g. one of the newer, safer Lithium variants.

It would indeed, but because of the way the battery, the contained BMU and the charger interact, any replacement would probably have to involve all three.
Given the added size and weight of the firebox, it might actually have been possible to design, for example, an LiFePO4 battery in the first place.
But the design was committed back when iron-phosphate batteries were not a well used and characterized as the LiCo, unsatisfactory at that chemistry was.

[Ancient Observer]

One of the concerns held by Europeans about the Safety case for the resumption of flying is the dual role of the FAA. Whilst no-one is saying that EASA and National Safety organisations in Western Europe are perfect - far from it - at least their drivers are clear. Safety, safety, and safety, in that order.
The FAA's drivers are not so clear. they also have to "promote" Aviation in and for the USA.

The one that still bugs me is the BA 3 engine flight from the West Coast to the UK. One part of the FAA decided to make a big deal of that flight.
The part of the FAA that made a big deal of that flight was not the "safety" part.

[lomapaseo]

One of the concerns held by Europeans about the Safety case for the resumption of flying is the dual role of the FAA. Whilst no-one is saying that EASA and National Safety organisations in Western Europe are perfect - far from it - at least their drivers are clear. Safety, safety, and safety, in that order.
The FAA's drivers are not so clear. they also have to "promote" Aviation in and for the USA.

Not so fast there

The FAA has directorates and various disciplines to meet the needs of the public (you get what you pay for through the good graces of who you elect in congress)

Fortunately the safety part of the FAA works under codified standards harmonized with Western Europe. So there is nothing about this that is any different between societies other than the source of who pays for what and how.

I dare say that the FAA directorates responsible for adminsitering the same rules that Western Europe does, would expect that safety safety safety drives them as well.

[SeenItAll]

Conspiracy Theory, let alone Kooky, is an overstatement of what we are seeing; ludicrous and laughable wishy-washy PR releases at intervals from the manufacturer. Complete suppression of technical information that is not convenient to the corporate line. Inability to identify the root cause of the two fires. These and many other issues are what has led to the lack of credibility.

May I suggest that if dishonesty was intended by those involved, rather than saying they have been unable to determine a root cause, they would dissemble by saying that, indeed, they have determined one -- and not to worry.

Please understand that I am not stating that the world is perfect -- just that sometimes, despite extreme efforts, certain things may be destined (for the immediate future) to remain unknowable.

While there are certainly plenty of lobbyists in Washington, DC who know not what they say, I am only suggesting that when dealing with an issue as potentially critical as these batteries are to both human safety and institutional survival, I find it difficult to believe that any responsible parties are trying to be willfully ignorant or consciously venal.

While I have great respect for the technical knowledge of many of the posters on Pprune, if Boeing, et al. and the FAA say they are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the problems with the lithium ion batteries have been neutralized and plane is safe, I am willing to believe them. The fact that they have not made public to someone's satisfaction the precise evidence is not a requirement.

And I am not trying to start an A vs. B war, or an FAA vs. JAA war. Both A and B make exceptionally fine aircraft whose safety record is beyond compare in any transportation industry. Further, I will note that when the BEA came out with its several interim reports on AF447, there were many on this board who claimed it was patent that the BEA was in the pocket of A and that it was misrepresenting what happened. Now once the FDR and CVR were recovered there was elaboration to the interim BEA reports, I can't think of any major interim conclusion of the BEA that turned out to be unfounded once the final evidence was uncovered. All of these guys are the best at what they do. I am willing to give them a lot of deference.

[heavy.airbourne]

IMHO

Remember SR111 ?
An MD-11 was downed by burning, smoking, melting, and dripping insulation material tested and certified by the FAA to be inflammable. Now, I rest my case.

[jolihokistix]

heavy, perhaps 'inflammable' should read 'non-flammable' there.

(Like it or not, inflammable and flammable mean the same thing in English.)

[ITman]

So if the ETOPS stays at 180, then I hope that UA have the balls to fly it over the Pacific and Atlantic to satisfy all the pundits. At the same time if the JAA find an issue during the test flying that could be more than egg on the face of the FAA.

[Joetom]

I am thinking Boeing and the FAA would like all aircraft back flying the 180 soon as possible with all the airlines together.

But I think some airlines may elect not to use the full 180 in the short/medium term.

I hope no 787 battery ever fails in any mode again and the heavy boxes can be removed in the future at some time.

But, with press reports often saying batts are not used in the air and only for ground use, plus the story of 100/150 batts being replaced in service life upto the events in Jan13, I will not be surprised if the batt story is over just yet.

[LiveryMan]

Originally Posted by heavy.airborne

Remember SR111 ?
An MD-11 was downed by burning, smoking, melting, and dripping insulation material tested and certified by the FAA to be inflammable. Now, I rest my case.

Wasn't it "Fire resistant"?

Also, wasn't the primary cause of the fire attributed to the IFE overtaxing the power cables, causing them to heat up? Or was it incorrect wire fixings causing breaks in the cable insulation and shorts?

[SeenItAll]

Remember SR111 ?
An MD-11 was downed by burning, smoking, melting, and dripping insulation material tested and certified by the FAA to be inflammable. Now, I rest my case.
22nd Apr 2013 17:05

I would never say than any organization or person (even ones on this board ) is infallible. I am only trying to suggest that it is unlikely that this process of investigating the causes of the problem and finding workable solutions has elevated expediency over expected standards of safety and professional responsibility. That the PR people for the organizations involved have been ham-handed or less than scientifically logical and satisfying in their reports should not be taken as indicators that the persons really responsible are inept. If nothing else, it simply is another display of journalistic cluelessness that posters on this board have been always quick to point out in other contexts.

NTSB probes safety testing of Boeing 787 batteries

[kilomikedelta]

Boeing's PR reflects its corporate ethos which appears to be image over substance.

I'm sure that Boeing's engineering design and production staff are competent and professional. What I'm not sure about is whether Chicago's zeal to get 'product' to 'market' and its outsourcing paradigm compromised excellence in engineering practice.

[FlightPathOBN]

NTSB Investigative Hearing: Boeing 787 Battery

National Transportation Safety Board

Began at 0900 EST

[glad rag]

Also, wasn't the primary cause of the fire attributed to the IFE overtaxing the power cables, causing them to heat up? Or was it incorrect wire fixings causing breaks in the cable insulation and shorts?

Well it was said to be related to the IFE upgrade, the Primary suspect being the sheeties working to their age old maxim of never cleaning their s==t up!!

[ChicoG]

Interesting perspectives indeed. But if they don't know the root cause then I'm buggered if I'm ever setting foot on one.

I'll wait until the second crash, that's when the FAA normally issues airworthiness directives.

[Kiskaloo]

As a follow-up to my earlier posts, EASA today approved the battery modifications so European operators are now cleared to return the 787 to service (or introduce it into service) with the modification in place.

From EASA's home page:

The Agency today approved the design change of the Boeing 787-8 Auxiliary Power Unit battery, battery charger and battery enclosure installation and certifies that the changes proposed by Boeing meet the EASA Type Certification Basis requirements. The applicable airworthiness directive will now be updated which will allow the European operated aircraft to return to service as soon as the modification will be installed.

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by kiskaloo

As a follow-up to my earlier posts, EASA today approved the battery modifications so European operators are now cleared to return the 787 to service (or introduce it into service) with the modification in place.

From EASA's home page:


Quote:
The Agency today approved the design change of the Boeing 787-8 Auxiliary Power Unit battery, battery charger and battery enclosure installation and certifies that the changes proposed by Boeing meet the EASA Type Certification Basis requirements. The applicable airworthiness directive will now be updated which will allow the European operated aircraft to return to service as soon as the modification will be installed.

Wait 'til it catches fire again. Which it will, being Li-on

[whatdoesthisbuttondo]

Why don't EASA, the FAA, Boeing and other regulatory bodies know what some of you PPRuNers know? You'd think that with all their boffins and experience of regulating and making aircraft, they could come up with a safe solution.

It's amazing that this aircraft is getting the go ahead when random people on here apparently KNOW it's unsafe! Why haven't the FAA and EASA been on here to get some expert views on the issue.

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.

[fizz57]

Now, why don't we get posts like this on the Airbus threads?

The 787 is without doubt a fine aircraft, and, whichever way you look at it, having an aircraft - any aircraft - grounded because of a perceived defect in its BATTERIES, for goodness' sake, is just stupid (the fault, not the grounding).

However Boeing's and the FAA's statements on the matter don't exactly inspire confidence, no matter how correct they may be. The fact that the root cause has not been found can only be interpreted as "we know it will happen again". And putting the battery in a fireproof box, while it may be effective in preventing a hull loss, has all the signs of an engineering kludge which does not befit such a fine aircraft.

So while I'm sure that all the regulatory boxes have been ticked and that the aircraft is safe to fly, from the technical side the state of affairs cannot be described as being particularly satisfactory.

[denachtenmai]

whatdoesthisbuttondo

The 787 is a fantastic aircraft. I know some of you are opposed to it because it's made by Boeing

I know that I am only SLF, but having read this thread from the beginning I can't recall anyone saying "Oh no it's a Boeing, I ain't going"
People on here recognise that Boeing make great aircraft, but there is a whiff of desperation here by Boeing, they need to get revenue flowing and if it means putting a box around a suspect battery and hoping the general public will not worry then they are heading for a bigger disaster, especially if another inflight fire happens

I expect the box itself will be gone before too long.

You said this not too long ago, do you still stand by that?

[DaveReidUK]

Qatar's 787 which has been stranded at Heathrow for the last 3 months finally departed earlier this morning.