See told ya! 
787 is unsafe!!! RUN! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!
- Thread starter MMike
- Start date
Meh..
ANALYSIS: Grounding Order Moves 787 into Uncharted Territory
By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC
A grounding order by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) moves the Boeing 787 programme into territory uncharted for a modern airliner as long as a recently discovered "battery fire risk" remains unsolved.
The order by the FAA effectively grounds six 787s operated by United Airlines and aligns the US regulator with two Japanese airlines - All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines - that ceased 787 operations earlier on 15 January. But the action also forces five other airlines operating the 787 to reconsider the aircraft's safety for an undetermined period.
Boeing must demonstrate that it has eliminated any risk of a battery-ignited fire before the grounding will be lifted. Jim McNerney, Boeing's chief executive, says the entire resources of the company will be put at the disposal of the effort to discover the source of the battery fire risk and to correct it.
Engineering resources, meanwhile, could be diverted from other strategic efforts in 2013, such as doubling the 787's monthly production rate, completing the assembly and launch flight testing of the 290-seat 787-9 and launching the potential 320-seat 787-10.
The grounding may not have an immediate impact on aircraft valuations, as no market exists for second-hand 787-8s yet, with only 51 of the type delivered.
But the public and regulatory safety concerns growing around the program could make it harder for some airlines and lessors to obtain financing, says Les Weal, head of valuations for the Flightglobal Ascend consultancy.
"If you were asked to finance one today, you may have to pass on the opportunity," says Weal, explaining that such financiers have no shortage of requests bearing less risk than the 787. In the hours leading up to the FAA grounding order, Flightglobal Ascend still assigned a $110 million valuation for a new 787-8 built in 2013.
On top of the program's financial concerns, Boeing may also need to restore confidence in the 787's entire electrical architecture. It was designed as a technological leap forward, reducing fuel consumption by several percentage points, and using electricity to replace parasitic bleed-air to power onboard systems and cabin pressurisation.
But the power system with nearly 1.5MW (2,010hp) of capacity has been a source of constant headaches barely 15 months into service. A suspected batch of poorly-built circuit boards are likely to have caused a series of glitches on power distribution panels of several aircraft in December 2012, forcing United and Qatar Airways to briefly ground some aircraft to perform repairs.
Far more worrisome, however, are the newly-realized risks of fire posed by the two lithium-ion polymer batteries, a powerful chemistry is described as a "first" in commercial aviation on the 787. Boeing selected a lithium-ion-based battery proposed by electrical power conversion system supplier Thales, which packaged an industrial-grade battery designed by Japanese firm GS Yuasa and a battery charger unit made by Securaplane, based in Tucson, Arizona.
Industry and government regulators were aware of the risks of potential safety hazards posed by battery chemistries based on lithium-ion.
In 2006, Securaplane's administration building "burned to the ground" because of a botched laboratory test involving a GS Yuasa battery designed for the 787. In 2007, the FAA imposed a set of special conditions for Boeing to prove the safety of lithium-ion batteries before the agency would grant airworthiness certification for the new aircraft.
The certification tests appeared to show that Boeing had passed the FAA's test. The lithium-ion battery allowed Boeing to start the auxiliary power unit with a device half the size of comparable nickel-cadmium or lead acid batteries used in previous aircraft designs.
Last week, Michael Sinnett, the 787's chief project engineer, said lithium-ion is not the only acceptable solution, but it was still the best option for the 787.
Any future design must show that the battery is safe, even if something fails and heat builds up to dangerous levels, says Hans Weber, head of the Tecom aviation consultancy.
Such a design must ensure that a fire is contained and is quickly extinguished by being deprived of oxygen, he says. Moreover, most, if not all, of the smoke generated by the flames must be vented outboard, rather than be allowed to circulate inside the pressurized cabin, he says.
Speaking hours before the FAA imposed by the grounding order, Weber said the public and regulatory response to the ANA and JAL battery incidents had been surprising.
"It's been driven by emotion, which is understandable," he says. "The emotion generated by a fire on board is high. That's one of the scariest things to contemplate."
By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC
A grounding order by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) moves the Boeing 787 programme into territory uncharted for a modern airliner as long as a recently discovered "battery fire risk" remains unsolved.
The order by the FAA effectively grounds six 787s operated by United Airlines and aligns the US regulator with two Japanese airlines - All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines - that ceased 787 operations earlier on 15 January. But the action also forces five other airlines operating the 787 to reconsider the aircraft's safety for an undetermined period.
Boeing must demonstrate that it has eliminated any risk of a battery-ignited fire before the grounding will be lifted. Jim McNerney, Boeing's chief executive, says the entire resources of the company will be put at the disposal of the effort to discover the source of the battery fire risk and to correct it.
Engineering resources, meanwhile, could be diverted from other strategic efforts in 2013, such as doubling the 787's monthly production rate, completing the assembly and launch flight testing of the 290-seat 787-9 and launching the potential 320-seat 787-10.
The grounding may not have an immediate impact on aircraft valuations, as no market exists for second-hand 787-8s yet, with only 51 of the type delivered.
But the public and regulatory safety concerns growing around the program could make it harder for some airlines and lessors to obtain financing, says Les Weal, head of valuations for the Flightglobal Ascend consultancy.
"If you were asked to finance one today, you may have to pass on the opportunity," says Weal, explaining that such financiers have no shortage of requests bearing less risk than the 787. In the hours leading up to the FAA grounding order, Flightglobal Ascend still assigned a $110 million valuation for a new 787-8 built in 2013.
On top of the program's financial concerns, Boeing may also need to restore confidence in the 787's entire electrical architecture. It was designed as a technological leap forward, reducing fuel consumption by several percentage points, and using electricity to replace parasitic bleed-air to power onboard systems and cabin pressurisation.
But the power system with nearly 1.5MW (2,010hp) of capacity has been a source of constant headaches barely 15 months into service. A suspected batch of poorly-built circuit boards are likely to have caused a series of glitches on power distribution panels of several aircraft in December 2012, forcing United and Qatar Airways to briefly ground some aircraft to perform repairs.
Far more worrisome, however, are the newly-realized risks of fire posed by the two lithium-ion polymer batteries, a powerful chemistry is described as a "first" in commercial aviation on the 787. Boeing selected a lithium-ion-based battery proposed by electrical power conversion system supplier Thales, which packaged an industrial-grade battery designed by Japanese firm GS Yuasa and a battery charger unit made by Securaplane, based in Tucson, Arizona.
Industry and government regulators were aware of the risks of potential safety hazards posed by battery chemistries based on lithium-ion.
In 2006, Securaplane's administration building "burned to the ground" because of a botched laboratory test involving a GS Yuasa battery designed for the 787. In 2007, the FAA imposed a set of special conditions for Boeing to prove the safety of lithium-ion batteries before the agency would grant airworthiness certification for the new aircraft.
The certification tests appeared to show that Boeing had passed the FAA's test. The lithium-ion battery allowed Boeing to start the auxiliary power unit with a device half the size of comparable nickel-cadmium or lead acid batteries used in previous aircraft designs.
Last week, Michael Sinnett, the 787's chief project engineer, said lithium-ion is not the only acceptable solution, but it was still the best option for the 787.
Any future design must show that the battery is safe, even if something fails and heat builds up to dangerous levels, says Hans Weber, head of the Tecom aviation consultancy.
Such a design must ensure that a fire is contained and is quickly extinguished by being deprived of oxygen, he says. Moreover, most, if not all, of the smoke generated by the flames must be vented outboard, rather than be allowed to circulate inside the pressurized cabin, he says.
Speaking hours before the FAA imposed by the grounding order, Weber said the public and regulatory response to the ANA and JAL battery incidents had been surprising.
"It's been driven by emotion, which is understandable," he says. "The emotion generated by a fire on board is high. That's one of the scariest things to contemplate."
^^Dude we need to hurry and get that approved........we could make some serious $$$ 
^^Dude we need to hurry and get that approved........we could make some serious $$$
I know an electrical DAR or two.....
I think the real problem is that you can't open the windows in case of a fire
ftfy
Ouch! This problem's got to hurt financially.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21095056
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21095056
If it was only a military contract where they could simply charge the government for increased development or production costs.
You can bet they'll be trying there best to make it battery makers problem.
Last edited:
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020199686_787batterysafetyxml.html
Not new info...but hey.....
Was it Sony or Toshiba that had exploding laptop batteries? Did they ever sort that out?
Not new info...but hey.....
Was it Sony or Toshiba that had exploding laptop batteries? Did they ever sort that out?
Funny we just issued a service advisory on those batteries, even if they are in PED's.........
Yeah it was Sony's Vaio laptops that had a similar fault a couple of years ago Mmike.
The real interesting thing is going to be what the NTSB uncovers regarding how Boeing got that battery design approved. Word on the street for years in the Part 25 aircraft circles I run in, is that Boeing is the 800 lb gorilla and can pretty much tell TAD (Transport Aircraft Directorate of the FAA) what it’s going to do and get TAD to sign it off.
Well since the FAA is basically depending on Boeing to provide all the data for the approval process it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to believe that.
Well there was a whole big stink about that a few years back. Not only Boeing. But there were concerns about internal DER's being TOO delegated. Even at smaller places nearby in Everett like Jamco and goodrich etc. Not enough oversight by the FAA. I'll see if I can find the article
But last year I almost took a job at Bombardier in the airworthiness group. And all the manufacturers have a certain amount of pull with the regulatory bodies. But yes... Boeing has the most.
edit: well that was easy
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2008152462_faa02.html
But last year I almost took a job at Bombardier in the airworthiness group. And all the manufacturers have a certain amount of pull with the regulatory bodies. But yes... Boeing has the most.
edit: well that was easy
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2008152462_faa02.html
Last edited:
I realize it reads that way but I did not meant to imply that it's only Boeing. Something I've always found 
worthy is the fact that in cases where documentation is contradictory, airline task cards have precedence over manufacturer instructions. The implication being that the operator knows more about the aircraft than the manufacturer when both are approved by the FAA. :mindblown:
worthy is the fact that in cases where documentation is contradictory, airline task cards have precedence over manufacturer instructions. The implication being that the operator knows more about the aircraft than the manufacturer when both are approved by the FAA. :mindblown:
I would like to retract this post, it is unfair to Edsel's.
They seem to have enjoyed far greater reliability than the nightmareliners.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24471093
Meh. Sounds like standard airplane stuff to me. This is only "news" because its the 787. I deal with stuff like this all the time.
Yeah I think you guys would poop your pants knowing what is/goes inop on a flight on say a 30 year old DC-9 derivation...
Airbus error 404, engine not found:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/06/airbus-confirms-software-configuration-error-caused-plane-crash/
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/06/airbus-confirms-software-configuration-error-caused-plane-crash/
Damage from UV radiation will do that y'know.
Airbus own3d despite all attempts to pull strings for title:
http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/privateer-trumps-airbus-in-electric-battle-for-channel-crossing
http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/privateer-trumps-airbus-in-electric-battle-for-channel-crossing
Scratch that, really old hat - 1981 first electric airplane crossing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Challenger
Veteran Boeing manager was transferred to 787 production; based on he saw there, he won't fly in a Dreamliner and begs his family not to
John Barnett had a three-decade career as a Boeing quality manager, but after he was transferred to the Charleston, SC production facility for the Boeing 787 "Dreamliner," he became a…
boingboing.net
Good.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/ARFYUAA5RFIDTJ7VCCJUE5RIAQ.jpg)
www.reuters.com
U.S. judge: Passengers in fatal Boeing 737 MAX crashes are 'crime victims'
A U.S. judge in Texas ruled on Friday that people killed in two Boeing 737 MAX crashes are legally considered "crime victims," a designation that will determine what remedies should be imposed.
www.reuters.com
just checked.... my vaca in january is flying on a 737.
Lots of variants out there. Not necessarily flying a MAX. That said, I have rebooked a flight that was supposed to be on a MAX.
does this mean mmike is going to jail?Good.
U.S. judge: Passengers in fatal Boeing 737 MAX crashes are 'crime victims'
A U.S. judge in Texas ruled on Friday that people killed in two Boeing 737 MAX crashes are legally considered "crime victims," a designation that will determine what remedies should be imposed.
I heard MMike was put away on an unrelated charges involving Poutine and a failure to say "Sorry". I suppose the feds might go after him if he ever gets out and Canada is willing to extradite.
death by butterscotch pudding
