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 ?

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."

There seems to be a bit of contradiction

Then states

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.

FlightPathOBN
GE and RR have PiPs in progress for their respective engine families, so this might be testing some new Trent 1000 bits.

GE and RR have PiPs in progress
 

Yep, PiPs come out when you squeeze the performance guarantees.

Move over MD-11...you have been replaced.

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.

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.

Ok...I'll bite.

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 :ugh: 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

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.

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

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.

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)

And this must be of major concern to many people.

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.

Is it??
It's different I agree but still fairly straight forward!:8

What is the weight penalty incurred because of the solution and how does it compares with an older more reliable battery?


Rwy in Sight

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.

Cool Guys
TSR2
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.