More 787 issues

[Grey Area]

Some people will bring politics into anything.

[Ship 741]

Only speculating on the reason why so many seem to be talking about outsourcing in relation to these incidents.

I can see how the outsourcing may have caused the 3-4 year delay, but not the latest problems.

[Mr Merry]

Boeing 787 aircraft battery 'not faulty'



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21230940

[ThreeSpool]

A bit of good news, ruling out the battery. However, it does mean they haven't found the real cause.

It would be good if it turned out to be a software bug like the Ariane rocket. Pure wild speculation on my part.

[KERVYN]

...to forget all the former problems of the aircraft type ;

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-skies-324579/

what do you think about ?

friendly yours, Etienne

[ThreeSpool]

It'll never get off the ground!

[KERVYN]

look to the date of the article !!

& the most recent B-787 news is ;

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_1...united-states/

friendly yours,
Etienne

[J-31 Burrito]

since we're on the topic,
why didn't Airbus choose the same engine as the 787 for their new craft

[Matt-100]

I expect Boeing sought exclusivity from GE and RR? Plus I believe there are several Boeing patents regarding the cowling?

[J-31 Burrito]

is the serrated engine exhaust panel on the 787 and 737NG a Boeing patent?

[KERVYN]

http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/imag...-batteries.jpg

[merlin2]

The dreamliner is finished once and for all...Grounding one year after the introduction is a long term dead sentence..There is no other explanation, the mass cancellations will follow soon .. If the rival A-350 flies this year and continue to do so for another year,the Dreamliner is dead ! and Boeings commercial aircraft division as well..

[paul178]

I don't know about dead but I expect the A350 if it proves itself will pick up some cancelations from Boeing.

[lbaspotter]

Well so uch for righting a plane off when in fact the Boeing 787 is'nt that dead at all people. The FAA are allowing Boeing to fly one off test flight later today from Fort Worth, Texas, to Everett, Washington.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/07/tr...787/index.html

[KERVYN]

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...2-96b64ca52e8f

friendly , Etienne

[Matt-100]

As I've said on other forums, the futures of too many airlines are at stake to even consider wide spread cancellations.
Airlines from Mexico to Japan are betting on this one light weight profit driving machine to turn their fortunes around. A cancellation would be a death sentence for any medium sized airline with old 767s or A330s in the fleet.
Unless Boeing and the FAA decide an overhaul of the electronic systems is in order, I'd be surprised if I saw any cancellations. The problem will most likely be fixed in a couple of months...
There is also no direct competitor to the 787. The A350 competes with the 777, and besides even if an airline did cancel 787 orders in favour of the A350 - with current backlogs they can expect delivery some time in 2019/2020

[KERVYN]

... was it thus this one ? ;

http://www.planespotters.net/Product...n-Airlines.php

fine colors...

friendly, Etienne

[Skymonster]

The FAA are allowing Boeing to fly one off test flight later today from Fort Worth, Texas, to Everett, Washington.

No, it's a ferry flight of an aeroplane that's been painted in Texas and is being positioned back to Everett... The FAA haven't decided whether to permit Boeing to recommence test flights yet.

There's no way there's going to be mass cancellations of 787 orders at the moment... The only way those would start is if the program is grounded for years. Airlines who are into the 787 have little choice - the 787 can perform some missions that no other in-service aircraft can undertake and reduces costs dramatically on others, and the only alternative - the A350 - isn't gong to be in service for at least another 18 months and has a huge order backlog already. Any airline bailing in the 787 will either have to radically change their short to medium term operational plans, or wait a long time to put them into play with an alternative aeroplane.

[mrtotty]

I agree that many airlines have bet the farm on B787 introduction and cannot easily back out.
That being the case, I much hope that Boeing gets a fix sorted out soon. A prolonged grounding is going to cause all sorts of problems.

[MSR777]

The spectre of big compensation payouts, is looming large again for Boeing.

[Skymonster]

National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman said the board's investigation of last month's battery fire in a Japan Airlines 787 "Dreamliner" while it was parked in Boston shows the fire started with multiple short-circuits in one of the battery's eight cells. That created an uncontrolled chemical reaction known as "thermal runaway" and spread to the rest of the cells, she said.

That's at odds with what Boeing told the Federal Aviation Administration when the agency was working to certify the innovative aircraft for flight, Hersman said. The manufacturer asserted its testing showed that any short circuiting could be contained within a single cell, preventing thermal runaway and fire, she said.

Boeing's testing also showed the batteries were likely to cause smoke in only 1 in 10 million flight hours, she said. But the Boston fire was followed nine days later by a smoking battery in an All Nippon Airways plane that made an emergency landing in Japan. The 787, Boeing's newest and most technologically advanced plane, has recorded less than 100,000 flight hours, Hersman noted.

Seems like the basis on which the 787 was certified is brewing!

[Matt-100]

I was under the impression the authorities (FAA and others) were the ones who did the testing?
This is what happens in a free market economy when you let the manufacturers do their own testing - they work the system and cut corners in order to get certification.
With the FAA working the 787 with a fine toothed comb, it will be interesting to see whether they ask for the resertification of other components (other than the battery).

[AirportsEd]

The latest from Boeing:

http://www.airportsinternational.com...-battery/12240

[Bmused55]

US NTSB Says Boeing 787 Problems Originated in its Battery

No $h!t sherlock!

[Skymonster]

I'm sure the armchair investigators will have known all along it was the battery, but its still rather unfair of you to say that, because just over a week ago...

Boeing 787 aircraft battery 'not faulty'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21230940

[ZuluAlfaKilo]

There's no way there's going to be mass cancellations of 787 orders at the moment... The only way those would start is if the program is grounded for years. Airlines who are into the 787 have little choice - the 787 can perform some missions that no other in-service aircraft can undertake and reduces costs dramatically on others, and the only alternative - the A350 - isn't gong to be in service for at least another 18 months and has a huge order backlog already.

I have to agree. From an historical perspective the A320 program suffered a far more traumatic start to its service life, but survived. First A320 delivery - 26 March 1988. First A320 crash involving loss of life - 26 June 1988.

[Bmused55]

I'm sure the armchair investigators will have known all along it was the battery, but its still rather unfair of you to say that, because just over a week ago...

Dear lord, you didn't believe that PR nonsense did you?

[Derekf]

I was under the impression the authorities (FAA and others) were the ones who did the testing?
This is what happens in a free market economy when you let the manufacturers do their own testing - they work the system and cut corners in order to get certification.
With the FAA working the 787 with a fine toothed comb, it will be interesting to see whether they ask for the resertification of other components (other than the battery).

Manufacturers have always done their own testing. The FAA/CAA are there to oversee the tests and give their stamp of approval. They are involved from the very beginning of a project to ensure that the right testing is planned, it is carried out properly and it is reported correctly. Something has fallen through the cracks here, but whether it should have been spotted before? We'll found out eventually. Maybe.

[merlin2]

I have to agree. From an historical perspective the A320 program suffered a far more traumatic start to its service life, but survived. First A320 delivery - 26 March 1988. First A320 crash involving loss of life - 26 June 1988.

This is not the same.. No Airbus or Boeing model had been grounded completely one year after the first delivery ( do I miss something here ?? ) ..This situation is unique.. The worst nightmare for Boeing would be to find out that the batteries are O.K but there is a serious imbalance between the total available battery power and the total electrical power the aircraft needs to function properly. If this is the reason for overheating, the 787 is f... up
and the Boeing engineers who screwed this up because they had 3 years time from 2008 to 2011 to solve or ascertain this problem will have to go back to drawing board resulting in massive delays and enourmous cost and huge image loss for Boeing. Remember, the 787's break even is estimated to be around 2000 aircraft !! and this is for now...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...tm_source=t.co

[Matt-100]

Yes, I too would question the A320 analogy. That's like comparing apples to oranges, the A320 air show crash was caused by pilot error and inadequate crew training from Air France. These 787 problems are a fundamental issue with the aircraft itself.

If anything the Habsheim crash served as testament to the structural integrity of the aircraft - despite being packed I understand only 3 lost their lives (due to being unable to escape from the fire and smoke due to blocked exits rather than as a direct result of the crash itself). I doubt many aircraft could plow into a forest with the forest being the one to come off second best