FAA Grounds 787s
 

CNN's "Breaking News" reports say the US FAA has decided to "temporarily" ground all 787 aircraft for safety concerns until a fire risk can be evaluated.

Can't say I'm surprised after the action in Japan, but it can't be good for Boeing. IIRC, United is the only US carrier operating the Dreamliner. Since delivery, they have been used only on domestic US routes. They were to have inaugurated IAH-LOS service with the plane, but that was delayed some time ago.

ETA: CNN website headline reads "U.S. regulators order airlines to ground all Boeing 787 Dreamliners until battery fire risk issue is solved"

Headliner here in Boeing land...

The Seattle Times | News, sports, weather, events in the Northwest

Another link from the Wall Street Journal: FAA Grounds U.S. Boeing 787 Dreamliner Flights - WSJ.com

Boeing stock down by 3.4%.

Are they Chinese batteries? Why can't we just use US batteries if that is the problem. I hope our country can get away from china :mad:. I try to make all my purchases from American manufacturers. I bought two HDMI cables made in china, one worked. Sent it back and bought it for less than half of what I paid for the China :mad: and everything worked for one third the cost. Let us all just buy from America. Our US made batteries alway worked just fine in jets.

bubbers...really?
Lets just suspect that you have at least a basic 4th grade education, and I will go out on a limb on that, it is very easy to determine that the batteries were made by a Japanese Company, in fact, much of the aircraft was made in Japan...
You will also find that there are virtually NO batteries made in the US.

It appears you have internet, so do a search for where the parts of Boeing aircraft are made. You will find that virtually the entire aircraft parts are made outside the US, and ASSEMBLED in the US.

No.

As for the rest of your diatribe; how does that saying go regarding specks in one's own eye first? I'm certainly one of the last people on the planet to speak up in favour of the Chinese but there are plenty of incidents and accidents that have been caused by US-produced parts: centre fuel pumps, landing gear actuators, rudder servos etc, so it's probably a good idea to stop flinging those stones around in your glasshouse.

In making the 787 Boeing out-sourced more manufacturing and parts than on any model aircraft they've previously built. This, of course, contributed to the delivery delays and now we are, possibly, seeing another downside to their strategy. IF the batteries are to blame, and not some other system that's causing the batteries to misbehave then, by all means, get the problem sorted but there's nothing to suggest the batteries of the US are any better, or worse, than those produced elsewhere.

I couldn't tell you where the batteries on any of the aircraft I've flown were made. Can you tell me that all the jets in which the batteries 'worked just fine' were made in the USA?


Edited to add: Sorry FBO, looks like we crossed in the post. I must type faster in future :)

[Long time lurker, didn't envisage registration finally being prompted quite how it was, but there you go...]

bubbers44:

Setting aside where the batteries are manufactured for a second, there are numerous technical differences between the batteries and the systems they're used for on a 787 than almost anything else in the sky, particularly airliners. They'd still be vastly different to practically everything gone before even if they were made by uncle sam's own fair hand.

It's self-defeating to write off the rest of the world so quickly too, since large swathes of it are at least capable enough to realise that your ignorant outlook is unlikely to be high on a normal distribution curve for fellow citizens of your beloved US of A.

To save everyone some frustration, you should probably disconnect the computer/smartphone/whatever you used to post that bilge, as it's sure shootn certain to be full of foreign manufactured components. Perhaps even li-ion from the far east.

To everyone else:

Greetings, and apologies for that opening rant.

While I'm normally an advocate of a 'better safe than sorry' outlook, it's a shame that these issues are feeding the news stand machine; which of course risks disproportionately affecting perception of the aircraft and/or the technology onboard.

Here's hoping that the situation is resolved and aircraft returned to flight before the tabloid media smell blood.

Bubbers, are you for real, the USA doesn't make much any more; I read last year that GE closed their last light bulb factory and all the bulbs are now made in China.

Chinese batteries seem to be good enough for everyones laptops, Ipads, digital cameras, etc...

BTW, how long before Airbus change their website? Home | A350 XWB by Airbus

Seems they intend to use Li-Ion cells too.

Lithium Ion batteries have had their fire problems in computers, cars, drills, just about in everything in which they have been used. I remember several years ago a regional carrier on which I often flew wouldn't let us have our carry-on computer bags that wouldn't fit go into the hold due to battery fire danger. We had to take the computer and spare batteries if we had them out and keep them with us at our seat where a fire hazard would be easily identified. Back then it was suspected contamination in the battery material. By the way Airbus does use some Lithium-ion batteries on current planes but nowhere to the extent of the 787.

The batteries in this case are made by Yuasa - a Japanese company. Personally, I am beginning to suspect that the global nature of this project has proved a bit too much of a management challenge for Boeing.

Batteries or else the ultimate responsibility lies with B. They selected all subcontractors, suppliers including QA checks etc. and I suppose also conducted all steps necessary for certification.

I suspect Boing forced the pace a bit too much in order to play catch-up with Airbus.
Chickens and roost come to mind.

Made in America.

Yuasa Battery, Inc. has been manufacturing motorcycle batteries in the U.S.A.
Yuasa Batteries :: About Yuasa

GSYuasa Lithium Power | Lithium Batteries for the Next Generation

@ Bubbers
 

Bubbers, you really just re-enforce my general opinion of my cousins from across the Atlantic.

Apologies to educated Americans.

bubbers
 

I read bubbers post and get a mental picture of a homer simpson-ish figure pounding on a keyboard muttering "stupid chinese batteries" ...... havent visited pprune for a long while......made my day really

Boeing will be happy to know that Air Indiis still utilizing their almost shiny B787s. Saw one taxing out in VIDP this morning.

And I hope bubbers noted the passenger entry doors were made by those 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' in France.
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going

Catch up to what? Last I checked, it was Airbus playing catch-up with their A350.
Boeing's 787 order books do not paint the picture of a manufacturer in need to rush something to market.

I suspect that Old Carthusian is correct on this one.
Too many suppliers, not enough quality control.

I was amazed to handle a small battery of the type which seems to be causing all the problems. It was for a light a/c & was about 25% lighter & smaller than the current one I am using. Surely two larger versions for the 787 could not be a significant weight penalty.? Maybe the real problem could be the unusual all electric design of this a/c. There must be huge amounts of electrical energy being shunted around the wiring looms.

captjns,
Interesting, since Reuters reports otherwise:
DGCA grounds Air India's Dreamliners after U.S. decision | Reuters

Wow... these things run on batteries ? The wonders of modern science eh !

What happens if they need to put fresh ones in and they're already in the air ?



:E

Well it's 4 minutes past 8 and that's made my day!



edited for stupid Chinese keyboard

All grounded?
 

All 787s may be grounded by end of day.
LOT, LAN, Air India either chose or were made to follow FAA lead.
No word from Ethiopian but other planes put in service today for scheduled 787s.
Qatar?

Dont go to hard on bubbers guys, he is one of those that devotes his life to everything Boeing, stars and stripes etc! A bit like all British who use 'us' and 'we' when talking about Man United......there aint much British about those either!
On a serious note i think the FAA had little option, fail to step in and a unit goes down over the pond......they would have had a lot of answering. I am quite interested that Boeing didnt step in first.

Well it seems it is a non-issue for Boeing because they took into account a possible battery fire and say the airplane can stay aloft with a full-blown battery fire. presumably for the full ETOPS time frame.

Somehow this does not give me a warm and cozy feeling. Have they really found the worst case fire scenario, including damage to other electrical systems, overload of the remaining system, spread etc.

Boeing still haven't been certified to the full 330 minutes ETOPS time so is this due to the battery/electrical problem?

As a potential 787 passenger, I'd rather Boeing were confident that "the 787 won't develop a full-blown fire" rather than them say "the 787 can handle a full-blown fire and remain in the air". It's not good PR and won't help me sleep mid-atlantic on the red-eye. For Boeing the whole issue of teething troubles need really tight PR to maintain airline and passenger confidence.

Whichever way I look at this, there is only one ray of sunshine - we haven't had a loss of life. Whether you're in the supply-side, a driver, a passenger or just another member of the human race who lives in the real world this is terrible news. Only Boeing and Airbus make aircraft like this. We need competition. Even the 'anti-Boeing pro Airbus' brigade should join in defending aviation per se because it is the credibility of aviation that is being harmed, not just Boeing. Any of these issues could just as easily have happened with Airbus.

Liveryman posted Airbus A380 first flight 27-4-2005
Boeing 787 first flight 15-12-2009

Are you serious? You are comparing the 787 to the A380? Go to Airliners.net and do that. I'm sure they'ed love to have you there. :ok: :ugh:

Any mods out of their pyjamas yet? My mouse wheel is in danger of burning out with 5 x 787 threads running.

I don't think it has been pointed out, but the power distribution and charging circuits seem to be made by Thales:
Boeing 787 Thales

Bubbers' gonna have a field day...

Grounded in Europe
 

Just heard on the radio: B787 grounded in Europe as well

One would hope that these are not lithium cobalt oxide cells.......

Not really the correct comparison.

I think the B787 will eventually be a game-changer but it might take another year or so to settle down. Boeing may yet lead the market with this product.

Airbus introduced an innovative VLA product to market with the A380 that Boeing didn't, but it also had numerous teething troubles. Despite Emirates best efforts the A380 isn't exactly a run-away sales success. However, Boeing's 747-8 has been a real sales disappointment so I suppose you could argue Airbus leads this segment of the market.

As for the B777 in it's various forms, surely Boeing must be regarded as a class winner to produce such a fine product in great numbers. I'm really looking forward to seeing what Boeing do to replace the B777.

Airbus does well with the A330 though, sitting below the B777 size aircraft and gets a tick in the box for it.

For me, the A320 v B737 debate is a waste of breath as they sell in roughly the same numbers and have attributes that appeal to different customers. I'd give them both a tick in the box for their respective products.

In short, I don't think either Airbus or Boeing leads one over the other overall. As each brings in a new model, you could argue they gain a lead but it a fluid game where each competitor leads the other from time to time.

I'd be very surprised if that was the case. The electrical and chemical energy stored in one of those battery packs is significant. (24V/65Ah was being quoted for the APU?) Normal hold fire suppressant (halon) would be effective against flames coming out of a pack, while the concentration was high enough, but would do very little to stop what's going on internally. That's why the advice for a lithium battery fire is halon first, then lots of water to quench it - I don't think the 787 has water sprinklers in the hold. :uhoh:

Just one AA cell that goes bad can be quite spectacular - a pack equivalent to a stack of car batteries...? :eek: It took a team of professional fire-fighters 40mins to put the 787 in Boston out and that was on the ground with specialist equipment.

I'm with Lemain and his comments ring true. Both Airbus and Boeing are producing ever complex aircraft stuffed with new technology.

Malfunctioning pitot tubes, wing rib cracks, battery problems, fuel leaks etc. are all bad for aviation's image. Worse, the flight crew can't just fly by feel now as they have to interpret these malfunctions and diagnose the computer output in very little time.

If only 24 V / 64 Ah, then the also quoted weight of 70 lbs. does not seem to be all that great.

My 12 V / 85 Ah lead acid car battery weighs less than 20 kg.

A rich seam of battery chemistry information:

Basic to Advanced Battery Information from Battery University

(edit: It seems Boeing may have changed to lithium manganese in 2008. The following original post is probably outdated information) They are. The battery cells in question have Lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) cathodes. Around 10 years ago - when the 787 design process started - that was the only material available. The Supplier, GS Yuasa, was awarded the contract in 2005 (by Thales, who did the system integration).
Here's the spec sheet: http://www.s399157097.onlinehome.us/...s/LVP10-65.pdf

And yes, newer lithium-based chemistries have more desirable thermal properties in a runaway condition (click to enlarge):

http://s9.postimage.org/xy32u0ksb/lico.jpg

The battery company said the unit was "discoloured".http://www.nycaviation.com/newspage/...60-602x401.jpg