Boeing 787 news

[cnc]

maybe but the impact of grounding the 787's is much less then back then with the DC10's
if this would have happend a couple of years in the future with lets say 250 787's in ops i'm not so sure they would give the same orders

[RoMax]

Ok, that's a good point. But at the time of the initial cargo door incident (somewhere in 1972), that was just some years after first delivery. So at the time the NTSB found the desing fault in the cargo door, how many DC-10's were actually delivered? If that would happen again now, the fleet would have been grounded I believe.
Of course with the second AA-crash, pointing at other design faults (and faults made by AA of course) in 1979 and the fleet was actually grounded, that impact was much bigger than it is now for the 787, but I was pointing at the cargo door problems.
But it was not to say they were acting dangerously in those days or that the current grounding is not correct. I mean it's actually a good thing they dare to ground the fleet before a serious accident happens. If the authorities reacted as fast in the past as they do now, many people's live could have been saved.

[Nevihta]

AD issued by FAA about batteries in B787

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... enDocument

[RoMax]

The DC-10 was grounded from 6 June 1979 until 13 July 1979, so for 37 days. But the crash of AA 191 was caused by improper maintaince procedures by AA (although exactly the same thing was also done by other DC-10 operaterors like UA and CO), not by any shortcomings in the design of the DC-10.

It was a combination of a maintenance mistake by AA, a vulnerable design of the engine pylon and bad design of the leading edge slat system. AA caused the engine to come off, the Douglas design contributed to the way the aircraft behaved after that happened. (btw this was an interesting event, not only AA and Douglas were blamed, but also the FAA)
From the NTSB:
"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the asymmetrical stall and the ensuing roll of the aircraft because of the uncommanded retraction of the left wing outboard leading edge slats and the loss of stall warning and slat disagreement indication systems resulting from maintenance-induced damage leading to the separation of the No. 1 engine and pylon assembly at a critical point during takeoff. The separation resulted from damage by improper maintenance procedures which led to failure of the pylon structure.

Contributing to the cause of the accident were the vulnerability of the design of the pylon attach points to maintenance damage; the vulnerability of the design of the leading edge slat system to the damage which produced asymmetry; deficiencies in Federal Aviation Administration surveillance and reporting systems which failed to detect and prevent the use of improper maintenance procedures; deficiencies in the practices and communications among the operators, the manufacturer, and the FAA which failed to determine and disseminate the particulars regarding previous maintenance damage incidents; and the intolerance of prescribed operational procedures to this unique emergency."

But about the 787. I hope they can find a solution fast. What the FAA feared back in 2007 became reality, dangerous situations with the large amount of lithium-ion batteries that are quite new for commercial aircraft. Boeing and the FAA tought they proved it's all save, but apperently there are serious problems with either the design or the way of manufactering.

[cnc]

i wonder how they can keep those batteries shock-free
we already consider it as dangerous cargo for normal transportation

[sn26567]

Fair reaction of the Airbus CEO: "I honestly wish all the best to my colleagues at Boeing to get the Dreamliner back into service because an aircraft is designed to fly."

The B787 and the A350 are the first and second commercial aircraft to use Li-ion batteries. The 747-8 has more traditional Ni-Cd batteries.

FLASHBACK: Jan. 16, 2011: "FAA restarts 787 certification flights following ZA002 fire". That was two years ago. Didn't Boeing learn anything since then?

[RoMax]

The B787 and the A350 are the first and second commercial aircraft to use Li-ion batteries. The 747-8 has more traditional Ni-Cd batteries.

The A380 was the first, but only in two very limited systems. Nothing like the 787.

Airbus also reacted by saying there is not need to look at the A350 electrical design again as it's not as complicated and revolutionary as that of the 787. They say they learned from the A380 and tried to improve the system, but keep it simple.
(I believe the A350 will still use bleed air like the older generation of aircraft?)

[sn26567]

[sn26567]

Miscellaneous news

The Boeing Dreamliner probe focuses on burnt out battery; more checks are due. U.S. and Japanese aviation safety officials wrapped up their initial investigation of a badly damaged battery from a Boeing Co 787 Dreamliner jet on Friday, saying further checks would be held in Tokyo and could take a week to complete. The Japan Transport Safety Board aims to end an initial investigation into Boeing Co's 787 Dreamliner jet in western Japan by around noon Saturday.

After the recent Dreamliner issues, EVA Air now says it's not any longer considering a Boeing 787 order. Previously the airline was reportedly interested in the 787-10X. And Qantas cancels part of its order for Jetstar.

Airbus plans to have similar batteries on the A350 to those of the Boeing 787. But the electrical circuits will be more traditional.

[RoMax]

And Qantas cancels part of its order for Jetstar.

It cancelled 1 787 (out of 15)... Besides, that was decided late 2012 to improve the cash position of the airline and as Jetstar's long haul expansion will be smaller than expected. If you cancel an order for such a reason, you just cancell the whole thing ( 15 firm orders and about 50 options), not one by one.

After the recent Dreamliner issues, EVA Air now says it's not any longer considering a Boeing 787 order. Previously the airline was reportedly interested in the 787-10X.

Again, what's your source? Not good new of course, but it looks like bullshit to me or does Eva Air really believe that in 2017-2019 (about the time the -10X will have its EIS) the 787 will still have battery problems?!

Edit: think -> thing

[sn26567]

what's your source?

Airline Route. And the battery problems are only one of the many problems of the 787 that could have triggered EVA's decision.

[Boeing767copilot]

CEO Alan Joyce stressed that Qantas Group “remains firmly committed” to the 787. “The airline is confident current technical issues will be resolved by Boeing,” he added.


http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-c ... g-787-0118

[RoMax]

Airline Route. And the battery problems are only one of the many problems of the 787 that could have triggered EVA's decision.

Okay than, battery problems, fuel leaks, window cracks, electrical issues, ... (some of which are normal and will happen with every aircraft they buy), do they think the 787 is going to have these problems for the rest of the decade? That would be the end of Boeing and a bit naive of Eva Air. I'm VERY sure that if they indeed decided not to order the 787-10X, that this is not because of the current technical problems.

And indeed it's on the twitter account of Airline Route...but quite limited information and lack of a source to say the least...

[RoMax]

Some quotes (from Reuters news agency):

A Japanese safety official onsite at Takamatsu told reporters on Friday it was possible that excessive electricity may have overheated the battery and caused liquid to spill out. Pictures released by investigators of the battery showed a misshapen, burnt out blue metal box with clear signs of liquid seepage.

"The impact of this incident on the aviation industry is great. That's why we feel the importance of swiftly producing a comprehensive report, free from bias," said Hideyo Kosugi, a JTSB inspector. "We hope to produce a report as soon as possible... within a week."
"This information will go to Boeing and the FAA. They will assess it" before allowing the 787 to fly again in Japan. "The United States analysis may take a bit longer than this."

Mark Rosenker, a former NTSB chairman, said Boeing conducted over 1.3 million hours of testing before deciding the lithium-ion batteries were safe to use on the 787, and the company had to satisfy additional rigorous tests to be granted "special condition" by the FAA to use the batteries.

"I don't believe there was corner cutting in any way," he said. "I believe the FAA has done a good job in its certification process. And Boeing is a very formidable and extremely careful airplane manufacturer. You don't survive in this business by not making safe, efficient and reliable planes."

(All the testing didn't seem to be enough tough)

A spokesman for the airline said ANA remained committed to the Dreamliner. "The Boeing 787 is an absolutely wonderful aircraft and we will spare no effort to help it get back in the air safely as soon as possible," said Hideya Oishi.

(Almost strange to see how ANA continues to defend the 787 and Boeing as their launch customer, in all these years of 787-problems, I don't think you can find many public reports of ANA being angry, dissapointed yes, but angry...but of course, that's in public, they must be angry for sure)

Separately, Japan's transport ministry said a fuel leak on another JAL-operated 787 last week was due to a malfunction in a drive mechanism that controls a valve. It said the British company that makes the valve was investigating. The ministry declined to name the firm.

Hans Weber, president and owner of TECOP International, a San Diego-based aviation consulting firm and former adviser to the FAA, said it was possible the incidents could be the result of a bad batch of batteries - as was the case with General Motors' Volt electric car, where fires were blamed on a defective batch of batteries.

"We have to consider the suppliers were at one time producing a lot of equipment for the 787 and then everything got delayed, so some of the stuff they built has been sitting on the shelf for a while. Some of these might have been produced early in the production process and there may have been some deficiencies in the production process," he said.

"This could turn out to be a minor technical problem, but the FAA has turned it into a significant marketing challenge for Boeing," said Loren Thompson, defence consultant at the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based think tank.

[tsv]

Love the comment that the "FAA has turned it into a significant marketing challenge for Boeing" by Loren Thompson.

If she works for a Think Tank it must be one that doesn't require very deep thinking! It's the FAA's job to ground aircraft that have safety issues and when an Aircraft type is regularly experiencing Electrical problems it clearly has a safety issue.

Luckily for Boeing their marketing department have vast experience putting a positive spin on events surrounding this Airliner and I doubt they will be in the least fazed by this latest "challenge".

[RoMax]

ANA incident was caused by an overcharged battery, it overheated and started to leak/spray burning electrolytes in the avionics/electronical compartment below the cockpit.

Boeing, the FAA and NTSB, Thales Group (they supply the electrical power conversion system), GS Yuasa (battery supplier) and Securaplane/Meggitt (making the battery charger unit) will continue to investigate the event and the findings of the Japanese safety investigators.

'Best case' scenario is a production fault, a mistake in the design would be worse (requiring a new design and re-certification). It's both not good for Boeing, but a mistake in the design will take much more time and will cost a lot more.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... on-381268/

[sn26567]

Boeing has stopped the deliveries of new 787s. A wise decision, as long as the remedies to all the current problems are not developed. But production continues. Without the batteries?

United has cancelled all international flights with the 787 until mid-February.

All 787's will remain grounded also tomorrow as Boeing, the FAA, and investigators work to find a solution to correct the battery issue.

Air India and LOT have both confirmed they are in contact with Boeing for 787 compensation.

[galaxy]

The Dreamliner becomes the Fyra of the U.S.

[sn26567]

BREAKING: After examining the black box of the JAL 787 that had the battery fire in Boston on January 7th, the NTSB has reported that the battery did not exceed the maximum 32V design voltage. Initially it was thought that the fire was due to overcharge of the battery. I'm not sure that this is good news, because it would mean that the battery cannot cope with normal usage.

The NTSB-led team will now examine and test the 787 battery charger in Arizona on Tuesday.

Boeing’s leadership privately believes the government’s grounding of the company’s flagship 787 Dreamliner was an unnecessarily drastic step, but its defensive attitude isn’t sitting well with some customers and risks alienating regulators. Could they take another decision?

[sn26567]

Air India and LOT have both confirmed they are in contact with Boeing for 787 compensation.

Contractually, Boeing will have to pay only for fixing the jets, and for retrofitting the fleet already built with any required changes. That’s peanuts, compared to what it’s costing the airlines to cancel their 787 flights and take care of the passengers booked on them. But Boeing takes a tough stance on post-delivery compensation and likely won’t pay out much to the affected airlines.

Perhaps the most affected customer will be the Polish airline LOT, which on Wednesday flew its first 787 from Warsaw to Chicago and now can’t fly it back. LOT is depending on revenue from 787 international flights to climb out of serious financial trouble.