Boeing 787 faces new risk: limits on ETOPS
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walnut's post@51, prompted me to go back to #36 (TV programme posted by Jackx123)
I really wish I hadn't
If even 50% of that investigative journalism is true, then there's a massive amount of collusion and cover-up of which we are not aware. I had read an article elsewhere about the botched, substandard parts and assumed, like most would, "heck, they're still flying,Boeing always build like a brick outhouse,so even if the parts are a bit down on spec, there's still plenty of strength"
WRONG
Business and politics have been guiding the decisions in this matter......All the Engineering talent and informed opinion on this Forum, has a broad concensus that the 787 electrical system is fundamentally flawed,,,,,,yet it was certified safe and meeting regulatory requirements -until the evidence was overpowering and worldwide.
How the arrogant fools ever thought they could keep this hidden, I don't know. A bigger worry, is the extent of collusion by the very people who are supposed to keep the general public safe.
Bung them all on a faulty aircraft, show and explain the faults that THEY certified were safe, lock them in and fly them .....see how many have brown trousers and a new humility!
I really wish I hadn't
If even 50% of that investigative journalism is true, then there's a massive amount of collusion and cover-up of which we are not aware. I had read an article elsewhere about the botched, substandard parts and assumed, like most would, "heck, they're still flying,Boeing always build like a brick outhouse,so even if the parts are a bit down on spec, there's still plenty of strength"WRONG
Business and politics have been guiding the decisions in this matter......All the Engineering talent and informed opinion on this Forum, has a broad concensus that the 787 electrical system is fundamentally flawed,,,,,,yet it was certified safe and meeting regulatory requirements -until the evidence was overpowering and worldwide.
How the arrogant fools ever thought they could keep this hidden, I don't know. A bigger worry, is the extent of collusion by the very people who are supposed to keep the general public safe.
Bung them all on a faulty aircraft, show and explain the faults that THEY certified were safe, lock them in and fly them .....see how many have brown trousers and a new humility!
Fizz57.
No.
Edmundronald.
Very good points which I think were addressed in the Tech log thread. Fitting the APU with a dedicated PMG to power the APUC would seem the answer.
As for having no APU with a double engine failure. The Air Transat A330 into the Azores and the Gimli glider spring to mind.
No.
Edmundronald.
Very good points which I think were addressed in the Tech log thread. Fitting the APU with a dedicated PMG to power the APUC would seem the answer.
As for having no APU with a double engine failure. The Air Transat A330 into the Azores and the Gimli glider spring to mind.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APU battery
The APU on the 777 operates the same way - if the APU battery becomes inoperative, the APU shuts down. ....
On B777 the APU battery can be removed with APU running as the controller receives power from the Main battery bus as well.
Strangely on B787 the APU controller has only the APU battery supply. Without that the APU shuts down.
I have no idea why this change. May be they wanted save the weight of a wire??
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dual power
Fitting the APU with a dedicated PMG to power the APUC would seem the answer.
Hi tech.
As the reliability of both batteries is in question perhaps that is why.
Admittedly, the odds of both batteries failing at the same time...during an engine emergency...on an etops sector, are probably not worth calculating.
Some one will of course.
As the reliability of both batteries is in question perhaps that is why.
Admittedly, the odds of both batteries failing at the same time...during an engine emergency...on an etops sector, are probably not worth calculating.
Some one will of course.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ETOPS Not!
Until Boeing or the FAA can confirm the direct cause of the fire on either battery, the 787 should be Non ETOPS
The only way to even look at ETOPS would be a design change back to Nicad batteries and re-certification with the Nicads as part of the electrical system for the Main & Apu Batteries.
Until then, the rubbish fix which doesnt confirm the original cause of the fault, should result in the 787 staying Non ETOPS.
The Dreamliner has become the Nightmare Liner...a 78 Lemon!
The only way to even look at ETOPS would be a design change back to Nicad batteries and re-certification with the Nicads as part of the electrical system for the Main & Apu Batteries.
Until then, the rubbish fix which doesnt confirm the original cause of the fault, should result in the 787 staying Non ETOPS.
The Dreamliner has become the Nightmare Liner...a 78 Lemon!
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until Boeing or the FAA can confirm the direct cause of the fire on either battery, the 787 should be Non ETOPS
The only way to even look at ETOPS would be a design change back to Nicad batteries and re-certification with the Nicads as part of the electrical system for the Main & Apu Batteries.
Until then, the rubbish fix which doesnt confirm the original cause of the fault, should result in the 787 staying Non ETOPS.
The Dreamliner has become the Nightmare Liner...a 78 Lemon!
The only way to even look at ETOPS would be a design change back to Nicad batteries and re-certification with the Nicads as part of the electrical system for the Main & Apu Batteries.
Until then, the rubbish fix which doesnt confirm the original cause of the fault, should result in the 787 staying Non ETOPS.
The Dreamliner has become the Nightmare Liner...a 78 Lemon!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) chief Michael Huerta confirms that the Boeing 787's extended operations (ETOPS) certificate is being reviewed separately from the battery redesign investigation.
Addressing a Senate Commerce committee panel on the three-month anniversary of the Boeing grounding, Huerta's remarks clarified for the first time that Boeing has been answering the FAA's questions on two key fronts.
Boeing not only has to prove to the FAA that the 787 battery redesign and new containment system is safe enough. The company also has satisfy the agency that the 787 is reliable enough to fly routes that take the twinjet up to 180min away from an eligible runway.
The ETOPS certification is essential for most airlines that fly the aircraft on routes over the war or even overland in remote areas of Australia.
"Coincident with [the battery] review was a review where we went back and looked at our original determination relating to ETOPS flight," Huerta told lawmakers.
"The question there is the airplane when it was grounded was certified for ETOPS of 180min," he says. "And so the question for us was would we return it at that level."
Addressing a Senate Commerce committee panel on the three-month anniversary of the Boeing grounding, Huerta's remarks clarified for the first time that Boeing has been answering the FAA's questions on two key fronts.
Boeing not only has to prove to the FAA that the 787 battery redesign and new containment system is safe enough. The company also has satisfy the agency that the 787 is reliable enough to fly routes that take the twinjet up to 180min away from an eligible runway.
The ETOPS certification is essential for most airlines that fly the aircraft on routes over the war or even overland in remote areas of Australia.
"Coincident with [the battery] review was a review where we went back and looked at our original determination relating to ETOPS flight," Huerta told lawmakers.
"The question there is the airplane when it was grounded was certified for ETOPS of 180min," he says. "And so the question for us was would we return it at that level."
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not be surprised if the JTSB temporarily rescinds their approval to allow NH and JL to operate the 787 at ETOPS-180 and the FAA may again decide to follow their lead for PR purposes as they did with the grounding.
On the other hand, considering the 787's testing was trouble-free enough for the FAA and EASA to find the 787 suitable for ETOPS-180 operations and the plane flew without incident for over a year, which convinced the JTSB that the 787 was suitable for ETOPS-180, to issue a new ruling that finds the 787 not suitable for ETOPS-180 operation might call into question again how these agencies certify twin-engined aircraft for ETOPS at EIS and that could impact the suitability for ETOPS at EIS for new twins like the A320neo, A350 and 737 MAX.
On the other hand, considering the 787's testing was trouble-free enough for the FAA and EASA to find the 787 suitable for ETOPS-180 operations and the plane flew without incident for over a year, which convinced the JTSB that the 787 was suitable for ETOPS-180, to issue a new ruling that finds the 787 not suitable for ETOPS-180 operation might call into question again how these agencies certify twin-engined aircraft for ETOPS at EIS and that could impact the suitability for ETOPS at EIS for new twins like the A320neo, A350 and 737 MAX.
Last edited by Kiskaloo; 17th Apr 2013 at 12:36.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kiskaloo
On the other hand, considering the 787's testing was trouble-free enough for the FAA and EASA to find the 787 suitable for ETOPS-180 operations and the plane flew without incident for over a year, which convinced the JTSB that the 787 was suitable for ETOPS-180, to issue a new ruling that finds the 787 not suitable for ETOPS-180 operation might call into question again how these agencies certify twin-engined aircraft for ETOPS at EIS and that could impact the suitability for ETOPS at EIS for new twins like the A320neo, A350 and 737 MAX.
Accordingly the evidence was reviewed and a new position, based on the additional evidence determined.
Does it call into question how certification works?
Almost certainly not. A test and compliance regime would be determined and certification granted if passed. If subsequent events mean a type no longer passes then their accreditation is reviewed.
Sounds like a sensible pragmatic process. Where's the problem? The battery fire? Sure that's bad, but if it didn't happen in testing then there's no reason to fail the accreditation process. And if subsequent events contradict the genuinely obtained results during certification then you review what certifications are granted.
How is any of this hard to understand? Things can change and the system is flexible enough to cope with that.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: USA, Vermont
Age: 79
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In three hours, the battery box would probably be down to ambient temperature, or darned near it. There's only so much stored electrical energy and electrolyte in the battery, think self extinguish. You really can't "fight" a Lithium battery fire, just safely contain it until it's out. The new vented containment system should address the fire risk very well.
Pete
Pete
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since you can fly the 787 without an APU battery or APU, we're honestly saying that because one Ship's Battery failed in flight we should therefore determine the 787 is no longer suitable for ETOPS-180?
Should we find the 767, 777 and A330 not suitable for ETOPS-180 every time one of them suffers an inflight shutdown of an engine?
Should we risk finding the A350 suitable for ETOPS-180 before EIS? Or should it suffer an IFSD or some other ETOPS-related systems failure, should we immediately find it unsuitable?
Should we find the 767, 777 and A330 not suitable for ETOPS-180 every time one of them suffers an inflight shutdown of an engine?
Should we risk finding the A350 suitable for ETOPS-180 before EIS? Or should it suffer an IFSD or some other ETOPS-related systems failure, should we immediately find it unsuitable?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since you can fly the 787 without an APU battery or APU, we're honestly saying that because one Ship's Battery failed in flight we should therefore determine the 787 is no longer suitable for ETOPS-180?
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
golfyankeesierra
They certified the 777 as suitable for ETOPS-180 before the first revenue flight took off from Dulles for Heathrow.
And it's assumed EASA will certify the A350 as suitable for ETOPS-180 before the first revenue flight departs Doha, so should the FAA break tradition and not accept EASA's certification suitability until the A350 accumulates sufficient flight hours to "prove itself"?
And we should remember that the 787 did fly for over a year without major incident, so how long is long enough when it comes to proving oneself with flying? For the Japanese, it was a year, and once the 787 met that requirement, they allowed NH and JL to operate it on missions with ETOPS-180.
I don't think the batterymalfunction is the root cause the FAA is reconsidering; it merely wakens them up that they have certified a brand new aircraft to ETOPS right from the start, without it proving itself in line flying.
And it's assumed EASA will certify the A350 as suitable for ETOPS-180 before the first revenue flight departs Doha, so should the FAA break tradition and not accept EASA's certification suitability until the A350 accumulates sufficient flight hours to "prove itself"?
And we should remember that the 787 did fly for over a year without major incident, so how long is long enough when it comes to proving oneself with flying? For the Japanese, it was a year, and once the 787 met that requirement, they allowed NH and JL to operate it on missions with ETOPS-180.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And we should remember that the 787 did fly for over a year without major incident, so how long is long enough when it comes to proving oneself with flying?
How Airlines Kept 787s on Schedule - WSJ.com
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition to approving the new 787 Battery Design, FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency hasn’t changed the Dreamliner’s ETOPS (“extended operations”) certification, which means the 787 will have continued approval to fly up to three hours away from the nearest airport.
