Sounds more like marketing BS for Japanese domestic consumption.

Yeah, right.

@Kilomikedelta.-

Probably the most incisive and insightful post on the whole thread :ok:

Probably, by request of the underwriters.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Even if it is now contained in a steel box.

Can't see the punters queueing up to fly on 787s unless you've got your Nomex fireproof suit and oven gloves on.

skol,

I think they will, because they can't tell one type from another. Sometimes, I have to look at the door handles or the safety card to see if I'm on Brand A or Brand B. :)

I42,

You could be right, I have to admit from time to time i've been asked how many engines my aircraft has from naive punters.
I'm always pleased to tell them it's 4, and if one stops 3 will still be going.

This punter won't be getting on one in a hurry, even with a fireproof suit and oven gloves, and I'll tell you why, I haven't seen any explanation of the cause of the problems, changing a few bits and sticking the battery in a box might be OK on a Ford Fiesta, but not on an airliner, not for me anyhow.

Precisely.

Much earlier in the threads discussing this, images of Lithium-Ion batteries exploding were posted, drawing no comment. Those batteries were smaller than a house brick and looking at the image of the proposed solution, I'd be asking if the proposed box for the much larger aircraft battery is both fireproof and explosion proof, which are two entirely different things.

I'm certainly no expert on the design regulations, but while it may be acceptable to mitigate risk of fire by putting the source in a fireproof box (is it?), I'd say it's a quite different ballgame when you admit to an explosive risk and don't fix the basic design.

And I don't think Ford would get away with such a solution. But more to the point I don't think they'd risk such a solution, if only because the user would be able to see it each time he opened the bonnet. Whereas, Boeing are in danger of an "out of sight, out of mind" solution.

Surely if you put a fire in a box you are likely to get a explosion the force of which will be increased because it has been enclosed? Says he thinking back to his naval fire training, and repeated exercises.
It can only be made safe by extinguishing the fire whilst it is still inside the compartment.
But why take the risk in the first place?

dervish:They were quit a lot smaller than a house brick and when it took off it made an impressive dent in a steel shelf about two meters from where it was originally located. Unfortunately I can not find the pictures from the whole aftermath and the dented shelf. Impressive little things.
Per

I would agree with all of this, and it is shameful that the FAA has gone this way. However, the bulk of the 787s are for export rather than for the US market. It will be interesting to see what the JAA/CAA make of the first ones arriving in Europe (which appear to be the Thomsonfly ones, with the BA order following shortly afterwards). They do not have the political dominance, and on past history the fact that many have Rolls-Royce engines counts for little in the technical evaluation.

Actually I think the certifying organisation to watch for upsetting the Boeing-FAA applecart will be the Japanese. They have half the initial deliveries, and they had both the major fires.

Isn't the plan to have a vent tube leading to the outside of the hull ?

Is that a very unique penetration of the pressurized hull? Presumably heavy (lest it rupture under pressure of the energy being released in the box), potentially very hot, relatively long and rigid. Ample opportunity for vibration?

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.

This thread has really deteriorated. While at first, there was interest in understanding what had gone wrong with these batteries, it has now completely devolved into kooky conspiracy theory speculations about why everyone associated with the issue from manufacturers, regulators and airlines are corrupt. I can't believe that any of the people advancing such speculations have ever had a responsible position in a government agency or reputable corporation.

While it is certainly possible that corners were cut in initial decisionmaking about the Lithium Ion batteries, it beggars belief that anyone who passed on the design reasonably expected the problems that did develop would develop. Further, once the issue arose, it is even more unlikely that Boeing, et al. would choose any fix (of which the firebox is only one component), or the relevant regulators would approve any fix, other than one that it is convinced will end the problem, not just suppress it. Not to do so with the eyes of the world upon them would be catastrophic to their careers, not to mention Boeing's $66.5b in market capitalization.

Get a life. You've been watching too many TV dramas. Accept the fact that the people dealing with these issues, both at Boeing, GS Yuasa, Thales, the FAA, the JAA, the NTSB and the airlines are probably more knowledgeable and professional about these issues than you give them credit for. Yes, bad things can happen in aviation -- but almost always they are the product of something not reasonably expected -- not something reasonably expected but corruptly suppressed.

May never get to the truth
 

Quote BBC news:

"Boeing has admitted that it may never know what caused the battery malfunctions that resulted in all its 787 Dreamliner aircraft being grounded."

BBC News - Dreamliner: Boeing 'may never find battery fault cause'

Root cause analysis important
 

I am disappointed that no root cause has been discovered and I think that raises concerns even with other mitigating factors in place. The safety analysis should assume that there is a high probability of battery failure until we have substantial experience to the contrary and this necessarily means that the mitigiation and control measures have to be looked at very carefully. At the end of the day it does sometimes happen that it is impossible to identify cause(s) although I am suprised given the effort thrown at this.

I have an ulterior motive because I may be designing a non-aerospace safety critical lithium application and I very much wanted to learn what the cause was. Normally the aircraft industry are very good at identifying and publicising root causes and I follow accident and incident reports for this reason even though I do not work on aircraft.

This is in itself a disappointing view. A number of those contributing here are competent and experienced aviation professionals, who have viewed the whole issue unfold. 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. Goodness me, we're all rooting for Boeing to get to the bottom of the issue and deal with it properly. But we just don't see it.

I've never visited "Potomac Heights", but from its location I would guess its population comprises more than its fair share of lobbyists for nearby Washington DC.

If the FAA was more worried about Boeing's profits than passenger safety, why did they ground the plane in the first place? That action cost Boeing nine to ten figures in deferred revenues, R&D and manufacturing expenses and compensation to customers.





WHBM
LOT has been operating the 787 within the EU since November of 2012 and I have not heard EASA is planning to require LOT (or any other EU registered operator of the 787) to do anything additional to their modified planes before they are allowed to resume service.

LOT had not planned to relaunch 787 services until October, but they now have said they will resume operations in the summer so they appear to feel they're cleared to go on a regulatory basis.