Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 131

Thread: More 787 issues

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    802
    My prediction is this grounding will be relatively short.....probably replace the batteries with NiCads (may have to add some capacity) for the short term while they redesign the Li-Ion batts, if they ever go back to them.

    BTW, which company manufactured the batteries?

    I agree that the evacuation was an over-reaction. Some of the folks on here commenting have no idea how many "odor" events there are every day at the airlines. The 757/767/747 fleets alone have had countless diversions due to blown/shorted out recirc fans.

    On the 787, there hasn't been any hull losses, there hasn't been any passenger deaths or serious injuries. "The system" is working. I predict this will be a minor blurb in the history of the 787 program.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Wythenshawe nr Manchester Airport
    Posts
    530
    I agree it will be a short grounding, but better to ground than risk passenger's.
    Nothing more than changing batteries.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    2,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Bmused55 View Post
    Conversely, an evacuation can and often does result in injury to some passengers. You could argue that a completely unnecessary evacuation can likewise compromise the safety of the passengers, especially if you let them spill out onto an active taxiway!

    All reports now completely retract the smoke claims. It was an error message and smell that prompted the pilots to divert (prudent move) and eventually evacuate (over reaction).
    Is it better to risk a potential fire given system warnings and odors then risk a possible injury with an evacuation? Nope. Evacuate. By the time the crew would get their 3rd or 4th indication after ignoring the first 2 (warnings and odor) it could very well be too late to insure a safe evacuation for all passengers and crew.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    704
    Official the type has been grounded, statement on Boeings web site.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Fife, Scotland
    Posts
    11,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Ship 741 View Post
    BTW, which company manufactured the batteries?
    I'm told Yuasa - a Japanese company
    Bmused55

    Keep thy airspeed up, less the earth come from below and smite thee.

    My Blog
    My Designs

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    3,020
    Quote Originally Posted by Whiskey Delta View Post
    Is it better to risk a potential fire given system warnings and odors then risk a possible injury with an evacuation? Nope. Evacuate. By the time the crew would get their 3rd or 4th indication after ignoring the first 2 (warnings and odor) it could very well be too late to insure a safe evacuation for all passengers and crew.
    I totally agree with your post. It's all too easy for any of us to play 'armchair pilots' and yes, those of us who find themselves supporting the evacuation, are doing the same. IMO, as I've already said, that pilot was there, we were not, he was in command, and that was his command decision, and he made it, end of. Surely better that, than everyone looking at a burning blob of composites, smouldering at the end of the runway.
    "Behold! The Wings of Horus"

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    956
    The evacuation with hindsight was on the side of overreaction, but you can also see why a crew might be jumpy with a battery fault and - suspected? - smoke? In my view a pilot is paid to make decisions and they made a decision.

    I am a bit shocked the FAA took the step of grounding the B787. Time will tell if it is a knee-jerk reaction.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    300

    Boeing Statement

    That Boeing statement is reported here...

    http://www.airportsinternational.com...grounded-787s/

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    East Midlands, UK
    Posts
    1,998
    Quote Originally Posted by Bmused55 View Post
    IMO, the full evacuation seems to have been an overreaction by the PIC. I can understand the decision given the recent events, but it was still an overreaction. If I wanted to evacuate every time I smelled something strange on a plane, I'd never fly!
    If there's been a fire indication, and the source of the fire has not been identified and/or it's not been possible to positively confirm that the fire is out, there's no choice but to treat the fire as still present. It doesn't come down to PIC over reaction - it's SOPs
    "Light travels faster than sound-that's why some people seem bright until they speak"
    AirTeamImages
    - the best aviation photography

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by ThreeSpool View Post
    I am a bit shocked the FAA took the step of grounding the B787. Time will tell if it is a knee-jerk reaction.
    I think the FAA realises now the scale of the problems. I doubt it's all knee-jerk because I read on the BBC earlier that FAA officials were due in Tokyo today to address and discuss the concerns of the Japanese carriers. It gives me the impression that the FAA originally thought the decision by JAL and ANA was an overreaction but have now come to the same conclusion.

    I'm not an engineer, but was there anything stopping that JAL battery fire from happening half way across the pacific? And what about the first fuel leak? The JAL crew only found out as they were taxiing on to the runway because an AA aircraft told ATC.
    Feel free to check out my aviation pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhr_spotter/ - comments welcome

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    flying high
    Posts
    4,598
    I am wondering how long it will take to have the 787 fly again. The demands of the FAA are not easy to meet. How do you prove your batteries and the containment are safe, when they failed 2 times.
    Member of ACIG

    an unnamed Luftwaffe officer:"Typhoon is a warm weather plane. If you want to be operational at -20°C you have to deploy the F-4F."

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    568
    I found it interesting to find out the last time the FAA grounded a fleet was the DC-10 in 1979. After 33 years of satisfactory air travel, the 787 must be a special case.

    Does a grounding mean all flights everywhere, or just passenger flights? If it's the former, what does this do to delivery schedules?
    Feel free to check out my aviation pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhr_spotter/ - comments welcome

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Fife, Scotland
    Posts
    11,199
    Quote Originally Posted by seahawk View Post
    I am wondering how long it will take to have the 787 fly again. The demands of the FAA are not easy to meet. How do you prove your batteries and the containment are safe, when they failed 2 times.
    Technically, the containment did not fail at all. There was no damage to the aircraft in either event. The battery's containment cover saw to that. So the containment part of the system is working perfectly fine.
    It's the fact that the batteries are failing that is causing the concern. The batteries are Lithium Manganese, apparently a relatively new technology and just as susceptible to overheat and failure as Lithium Ion batteries.

    One wonders why Boeing would decide to design their electrical architecture around such inherently dangerous batteries?
    Last edited by Bmused55; 18th January 2013 at 07:06.
    Bmused55

    Keep thy airspeed up, less the earth come from below and smite thee.

    My Blog
    My Designs

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Fife, Scotland
    Posts
    11,199
    Hmm, seems the chemistry of these batteries is well known to be unstable!

    Dreamliners Use Batteries Prone to Overheating

    Two major safety incidents involving Boeing 787 Dreamliners have caused two Japanese airlines to ground their fleets of the aircraft. The problems may be linked to a battery chemistry that’s particularly prone to causing fires.
    Bmused55

    Keep thy airspeed up, less the earth come from below and smite thee.

    My Blog
    My Designs

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by Bmused55 View Post
    Hmm, seems the chemistry of these batteries is well known to be unstable!
    Why do you think laptops are prohibited from checked in hold luggage?
    Feel free to check out my aviation pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhr_spotter/ - comments welcome

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    3,020
    I do feel a bit for Boeing on this. Being first into so many new technical aspects of jetliner operations, is not a lot of fun for any manufacturer. Thankfully, unlike poor old De Havilland with their early Comet issues, there has been no loss of either aircraft, or those aboard them. Hopefully, the 787 issues will be solved soon. I want to fly on one, so they'd better be!
    "Behold! The Wings of Horus"

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    956
    Once the B787 is flying again, the problems will fade from public memory. They will be more concerned with ticket price than if it is a Dreamliner or not. The early crashes of the A320 has not hindered its success.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    East Midlands, UK
    Posts
    1,998
    Quote Originally Posted by Bmused55 View Post
    Technically, the containment did not fail at all. There was no damage to the aircraft in either event. The battery's containment cover saw to that. So the containment part of the system is working perfectly fine
    Seems like Bmused55 and the FAA have different opinions on that... From the FAA press release:

    The battery failures resulted in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke on two Model 787 airplanes. The root cause of these failures is currently under investigation. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in damage to critical systems and structures, and the potential for fire in the electrical compartment.
    "Light travels faster than sound-that's why some people seem bright until they speak"
    AirTeamImages
    - the best aviation photography

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    ABJ-LBV-JNB-DBN
    Posts
    2,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Bmused55 View Post
    Hmm, seems the chemistry of these batteries is well known to be unstable!

    Dreamliners Use Batteries Prone to Overheating
    Good reference(MIT) Sandy. Boeing will have to make a compromise, my guess is different batteries and a more resistant containment vessel.
    http://forum.keypublishing.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=24455&dateline=137163  6822Hindsight is what you see from the tailgunner's position...

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    flying high
    Posts
    4,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Bmused55 View Post
    Technically, the containment did not fail at all. There was no damage to the aircraft in either event. The battery's containment cover saw to that. So the containment part of the system is working perfectly fine.
    It's the fact that the batteries are failing that is causing the concern. The batteries are Lithium Manganese, apparently a relatively new technology and just as susceptible to overheat and failure as Lithium Ion batteries.

    One wonders why Boeing would decide to design their electrical architecture around such inherently dangerous batteries?
    There I have to disagree. When the contents spill out or burn the containment failed. Latest rumours speculate about overcharging problems of the batteries as well. This could take a long time to fix.
    Member of ACIG

    an unnamed Luftwaffe officer:"Typhoon is a warm weather plane. If you want to be operational at -20°C you have to deploy the F-4F."

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Location, Location!
    Posts
    1,266
    At the risk of going off-topic, how does an airline cope with the sudden withdrawal of 17 of its aircraft, ie how does it maintain its schedules?
    Terms & Conditions Apply.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Creosote View Post
    how does it maintain its schedules?
    It doesn't. ANA has had to cancel numerous flights.

    I know QTR 075 is now operated by an A332, I assume United has replaced their services with 767s?
    Feel free to check out my aviation pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhr_spotter/ - comments welcome

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tonbridge, Kent, UK/Formerly Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,043
    I seem to remember that the 1979 DC-10 groundings hit Air New Zealand very hard, because the aircraft was the sole long-haul type they had in those days, with the early B747s (300s, I think) still some years away.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    At the birthplace of aviation in UK
    Posts
    1,599

    The grounding is a sound process in 2013 in comparison to previous eras

    The grounding is a sound process in 2013 in comparison to previous eras

    Harsh though my words sound it is in Boeing's commercial favour that these 'Gremlins' showed up.

    The Yuasa batteries are reported supposedly used in other modern airliners but they may have been off earlier manufacturing lines or simply aren't in similar temperature and humidity conditions as the 787.

    We are deep in one of the longest economic recessions in my lifetime and although big giants like Boeing try their best to manage quality of their supplier's products it is a simple trade off equation - "Can you spend the resources (men, equipment, time) in checking each product after the supplier delivers?". NO is the simple answer.
    The supply chain for these batteries is probably as long as one desires to imagine and it just takes one supplier in this chain to cut a small corner (save a small amount) and the entire quality issue is wide open.

    Let's wait and the result will I am sure be a better and more robust 787 and all customers will benefit from these early warnings.

    It just shows that the world has advanced and takes airline safety very seriously as this did not happen in previous eras which resulted in fatalities.

    After all is it just Boeing going through serious suppliers woes? Look at Toyota to name just one?

    Maybe it is Yuasa - Yuar.ea
    Last edited by nJayM; 21st January 2013 at 18:12. Reason: Typo
    Jay

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3
    This too shall pass.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    300

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    In a happy place
    Posts
    12,210
    This doesn't look too good.... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...7_ntsb_report/

    I'll be surprised if Boeing outsource as many vital systems on their next design to third parties.
    Last edited by Grey Area; 25th January 2013 at 19:45.
    You can't fool owls.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    3,020
    Certainly is bad news. I'm sure this will eventually get sorted, but in the meantime, it must be playing havoc with the publics perception of the aircraft. I wonder how much of an effect there will be on further delivery dates. Qatar, and the other new operators, must be 'thrilled'
    "Behold! The Wings of Horus"

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    802
    I have yet to see any hard evidence linking these problems with outsourcing.

    Par example, who built the battery and charging system on the 777? I'll guess that it wasn't Boeing. Also, we know that signficant structural portions of that airplane were sub-contracted.

    The Boeing unions seem to have done a marvelous job in convincing a lot of people that there is a link between outsourcing and these latest problems. Hats off to their PR effort, but perhaps they should concentrate their efforts on the factory floor instead of in the press.....after all, if only they wouldn't go on strike so frequently, there wouldn't be that pesky new factory in Charleston.

    As for the public, they will fly on the flight with the cheapest fares.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    3,020
    Quote Originally Posted by Ship 741 View Post

    As for the public, they will fly on the flight with the cheapest fares.
    I'm sure that there will be those within Boeing, hoping that you're right.
    "Behold! The Wings of Horus"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES