Imopaseo

Your favourable experience of the Special Condition process may possibly have been as a result of acting on behalf of American Industry.

But the really contentious SCs are not data driven. They are wrapped up in difficult probabilistic argument and in the final analysis your guess is as good as mine. So the final decision is not conducive to rigorous technical vetting.

And that is where the clout of the Industry lobby comes to the fore.

Very few SCs are changed once they have left the closed doors of the original writers.

I believe the drafting of Regulations / Requirements is a much more open, democratic and transparent process. SCs, being product specific are far more susceptible to commercial pressures.

CAAD

Could be true, but what was Airbus and other manufactureers response to the SC process? If mute then all your points are vindicated.

My interest in other manufacturers doesn't mean to exclude other parts of the industry, it is only because taken as a group they should represent suitable knowledge and a floor to the ignorance base. So if we want to blame the FAA or Boeing, why was this not obvious at the time? or is it simply after the fact "I wish I had told you so?"

It seems we have left the barn door ajar but nobody saw it at the time.

As far as I can see, the Special Conditions issued to Boeing for the B787 Li-Ion batteries are a carbon copy of the Special Conditions issued to Airbus A380 a few years earlier. (ref. 71 FR 74755; December 13, 2006)
Correction: One year earlier

Flyers' Group Seeks Limit On 787 Flights


http://www.avweb.com/newspics/787_assembly.jpg


Flyers' Rights, an advocacy group for airline passengers, said on Tuesday the FAA should restrict 787 flights to within two hours of an airport "until the safety of its lithium-ion batteries is proven." The restriction wouldn't affect flights over the continental U.S. or most flights to Europe, but trans-Pacific and transpolar routes would be off limits. "Our proposed actions are both urgent and necessary," said Paul Hudson, president of the organization. "Adequate testing of the batteries haven't been done and the fire investigation is not finished." United Airlines, the only U.S. carrier flying 787s, plans to resume domestic flights with the airplane next Monday, and will start flying the Denver-Tokyo route on June 10.




With an FAA-approved fix for the battery problem in place, Boeing said last week it has increased its production rate for the 787 from five to seven airplanes per month. The company plans to be building 10 per month by the end of the year. Meanwhile, the NTSB is continuing its tests and research to try to determine a cause for the battery problems. In a letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Flyers' Rights also asked him to create an ad hoc advisory committee of independent battery experts and open a public docket for comments on the battery fix.

Burnt switchboard, again
 

Loose nut, really? Only 4 sq. cm, though.
Switchboard problem on ANA 787 during test flight -NHK WORLD English-

captjns

I assume that the proposed two hour limit (ETOPS 120) is based upon the reliability (or lack thereof) of the APU as an alternate source. The safety issues have been addressed with the fireproof box. But at this point, I don't see how anyone can derive useful reliability numbers when the root cause of the problem is not understood.

I find it interesting that the FAA and Boeing are both talking about safety issues having been fixed (the battery not burning a hole through the bottom of the atrcraft). But its the NTSB that is looking into the cause. And following from that, systems reliability.

Nice thing to experience during a test flight supposed to verify exactly that..:E

strange both incidents were on Japanese carriers

more electrical panel problems...

not really, they have the bulk of the aircraft...

and way more experience with them

Good post FlightPathOBN. The electrical panel may yet turn out to be the bigger problem. Let's hope this really was a one-off. There's a good article here:
Boeing 787’s problems blamed on outsourcing, lack of oversight | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times

How will the carbon fibre aircraft cope with any large electrical input like a lightening strike ?
What mitigation is included or are pilots supposed to avoid weather in these planes ?

IIRC there's a wire mesh imbedded in the skin. There was controversy regarding the electrical bonding between segments at one point. I suppose the flight test program demanded a certain number of lightning hits. (Hopefully someone who actually knows can raise my low bar with some facts)

With the ongoing PR from Boeing ... last night I was watching a documentary about the first 150 years of the London Underground system. When it opened it had the only kind of locomotives then known - steam engines.

When the pax began complaining about the profusion of smoke and steam on the platforms and in the tunnels - the Metropolitan Railway Ltd replied by, "Publicising the benefits of smoke and steam for health."

Nothing changes ...:hmm:

Burnt switchboard
 

From the NHK English link that stopped working on the previous page. Japanese NHK pre-translation original also available if requested. In the quest for detail:

"...the switchboard on a 787 jet was blackened, apparently by heat, during a pilot training flight from Tokyo to Hokkaido on May 4th. It says a message indicating a problem with the jet's electric system appeared on one of the cockpit screens, but no smoke was detected. The cockpit crew used a backup system to continue the flight before the plane landed safely at an airport in Chitose, Hokkaido. A close check by maintenance staff showed part of the board in the electrical room beneath the middle of the cabin had been blackened. One of the nuts that connects wires and the board had come loose and an area around it of about 4 square centimeters had turned black. ANA suspect that staff from Boeing had failed to tighten the nut after they loosened it during pre-flight checks, causing the nut and its surrounding area to overheat."

to appease the regulators boeing have a new design for the 787 to enclose all potentially dangerous electrical systems


http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/et...ched-to-it.jpg

This has to be a Maintenance Control or a Quality Assurance issue. The work on the electrical panel was either not documented properly or not inspected properly.

Loose high current electrical connections are a well understood problem in commercial electrical maintenance. The loose connection begins to heat, the metal begins to oxidize, the resistance of the connection increases, the heating increases, and pretty soon you have metal at the scene of action being vaporized, but very little current flowing through the connection.

I wonder if they are doing infrared surveys of the electrical gear to look for developing problems?

Kinda sad that in what must be an "on our very best behavior" high-visibility period for Boeing stuff like this still happens. If a specialist team can't do better than that, how do the daily grunts on the production line cope with a 50%-increased production rate? Overtime, lots of new hands.

United 787 flight today
 

United 787 UAL-1 flight today..just pushed back KIAH -KORD

United (UA) #1 ? 20-May-2013 ? KIAH - KORD Flight Tracker ? FlightAware

No UN 4G on that box. Forget it.