# Dreamliner Nightmares



## The Davy Crockett

Boeing's New 787 Dreamliner's problems continue with two problems in two days - at the same airport for the same airline!

Here is a link to the story.


----------



## jis

The second problem was caused by the JAL crew forgetting to shut off a cross feed valve!

The first one is potentially a more serious one but apparently very unlikely while in flight since apparently both the APU and the Engines must be off to activate that battery pack.

Interesting nonetheless.


----------



## shinkansen

Two JAL one ANA for a total of three incidents this week. Regardless, I hate how the media is blowing this up. Just liek when the A380 came out there were teething isues, and the B777 prior and essentially every new AC there are little bugs.


----------



## jis

AFAICT the ANA one involved not having parts on hand to do some parts replacement in a brake assembly. Not clear that any safety issue was involved. Or maybe I missed something in that one.

The way they are counting these days, almost any flight that is delayed due to any technical issue would be counted as an incident! Yes it is a dispatch reliability issue, except the forgetting to shut the cross flow valve one.

The only issue of real concern in the current set of three AFAICT is the battery overheating issue which I am almost certain is the most likely to create an FAA AD.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Still, this plane was delayed to almost no end. Many airliner fans must have been delighted to see it finally enter service. I hope that now these issues will be solve, but they don't seem too big.


----------



## leemell

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Still, this plane was delayed to almost no end. Many airliner fans must have been delighted to see it finally enter service. I hope that now these issues will be solve, but they don't seem too big.


This is all very typical for teething problems one new aircraft.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

leemell said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, this plane was delayed to almost no end. Many airliner fans must have been delighted to see it finally enter service. I hope that now these issues will be solve, but they don't seem too big.
> 
> 
> 
> This is all very typical for teething problems one new aircraft.
Click to expand...

Well of course, 'cause I liked planes too until the LCCs expletived the domestic industry and now I only care about the routes without LCCs.


----------



## leemell

Swadian Hardcore said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, this plane was delayed to almost no end. Many airliner fans must have been delighted to see it finally enter service. I hope that now these issues will be solve, but they don't seem too big.
> 
> 
> 
> This is all very typical for teething problems on new aircraft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well of course, 'cause I liked planes too until the LCCs expletived the domestic industry and now I only care about the routes without LCCs.
Click to expand...

??


----------



## jis

Swadian, how many LCCs do you believe operate the 787? I am trying understand the relevance of your comment above.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Here is more on the status of the Dreamliner. The FAA has ordered a review, if for no other reason, to calm people's fears.


----------



## TimePeace

jis said:


> Swadian, how many LCCs do you believe operate the 787? I am trying understand the relevance of your comment above.


What, pray tell, are LCC's?


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Maine Rider said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian, how many LCCs do you believe operate the 787? I am trying understand the relevance of your comment above.
> 
> 
> 
> What, pray tell, are LCC's?
Click to expand...

Googled it - Low Cost Carriers


----------



## TimePeace

Thanks.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

After decades of continuous homogenization nearly every single major US airline in existence today has essentially become a LCC at its core. Whatever relatively minor differences that remain have little or nothing to do with being an LLC or a Legacy.


----------



## railiner

Texas Sunset said:


> After decades of continuous homogenization nearly every single major US airline in existence today has essentially become a LCC at its core. Whatever relatively minor differences that remain have little or nothing to do with being an LLC or a Legacy.





Texas Sunset said:


> After decades of continuous homogenization nearly every single major US airline in existence today has essentially become a LCC at its core. Whatever relatively minor differences that remain have little or nothing to do with being an LLC or a Legacy.


Agreed! And as original LCC's have matured, airlines such as Southwest have now began suffering some of the issues that legacy carriers have--mainly labor unrest.

Eventually as there is no difference between original LCC's and Legacy's, there will rise a new wave of LCC's to undercut the older carrier's.......


----------



## the_traveler

Yes, there may be certain problems with a new aircraft, but how often do you hear about problems with other "established" aircraft, or a recall of some car for some problems on "2005-2008 models"? :blush:

I am not worried about a few problems of this sort.


----------



## railiner

I too would jump on a 787 with no hesitation.....

The modern airliner, even an 'all-new' design, is launched into service with a far better pre-service certification, than say what the first jetliner's in the 1950's experienced.

Anyone remember the first Comet's?


----------



## The Davy Crockett

This article at CNN talks about how unusual the rereview by the FAA is.

From the article:



> The FAA "just certified the airplane, so they're going to go back and redo it." Does the FAA "not trust" their "own people?" asked Goglia, [a former member of the NTSB] who's also a former airline mechanic.
> 
> Kevin Hiatt, president and CEO of the Flight Safety Foundation, says the situation speaks to what's going on inside the FAA itself. "We hope they take a look at their own processes internally to make sure that they're up to date and on par with this new technologically advanced aircraft."


----------



## jis

Some reports suggest that a true blue American company, a subsidiary of United Technologies, named Hamilton Sundstrand, is implicated in all the part failures that have been involved, including the switching cabinets, the landing gear parts and the bad bearing in the Rolls-Royce Trent engines. So I suspect FAA is really interested in getting to the bottom of this. So far it looks like not a design problem but a batch of defective parts supplied by the aforementioned company problem. Good to get this investigated and taken care of before things get out of hand.

We will all get to know the details in due course of time as the investigation makes its way to the root cause.

Bad quality or non-standard parts and use of non standard procedures is a much more critical problem in avionics than on railroads. The result of using defective parts in railroads would most often not even make it to any newspaper, and might make it to this forum.

But in any case until an AD (Airworthiness Directive) is issued it is just another investigation. At present the expectation is that one or more of those might be issued for specific frames that are know to have gotten parts from the defective batch. No one is at present talking of any significant redesign or grounding of the plane. And contrary to Mr. Googlia, no FAA is not working on recertifiying it. It is working on investigating a specific set of events.


----------



## PRR 60

An All Nippon Airways 787 made an emergency landing and evacuation at Takamatsu, Japan (TAK) on Wednesday (1/16) after the pilot reported a battery fault indication and an odor was noticed in the cabin. As a result, ANA has grounded it's fleet of seventeen 787 aircraft.

Reuters

NHK World (video)


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

jis said:


> Swadian, how many LCCs do you believe operate the 787? I am trying understand the relevance of your comment above.


I don't care much about LCCs but I'm posting about the 787 because LCCs don't fly them!



railiner said:


> 'Texas Sunset' said:
> 
> 
> 
> After decades of continuous homogenization nearly every single major US airline in existence today has essentially become a LCC at its core. Whatever relatively minor differences that remain have little or nothing to do with being an LLC or a Legacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Texas Sunset' said:
> 
> 
> 
> After decades of continuous homogenization nearly every single major US airline in existence today has essentially become a LCC at its core. Whatever relatively minor differences that remain have little or nothing to do with being an LLC or a Legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed! And as original LCC's have matured, airlines such as Southwest have now began suffering some of the issues that legacy carriers have--mainly labor unrest.Eventually as there is no difference between original LCC's and Legacy's, there will rise a new wave of LCC's to undercut the older carrier's.......
Click to expand...

That's why I don't even care about those "cheap" routes anymore (when Legacies lowered fares to match LCCs) that people keep complaining are too expensive. AKA domestic routes.


----------



## PRR 60

PRR 60 said:


> An All Nippon Airways 787 made an emergency landing and evacuation at Takamatsu, Japan (TAK) on Wednesday (1/16) after the pilot reported a battery fault indication and an odor was noticed in the cabin. As a result, ANA has grounded it's fleet of seventeen 787 aircraft.
> Reuters
> 
> NHK World (video)


JAL has also grounded the 787. Not a good time for Boeing.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

And it continues... details here.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

PRR 60 said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> An All Nippon Airways 787 made an emergency landing and evacuation at Takamatsu, Japan (TAK) on Wednesday (1/16) after the pilot reported a battery fault indication and an odor was noticed in the cabin. As a result, ANA has grounded it's fleet of seventeen 787 aircraft.
> 
> Reuters
> 
> NHK World (video)
> 
> 
> 
> JAL has also grounded the 787. Not a good time for Boeing.
Click to expand...

All those years of having to hear the Boeing enthusiasts claim that Airbus was a joke of a manufacturer. It's certainly true that the A380 had multiple problems out of the gate and that the B777's EIS was smooth as silk, but two data points in a vacuum do not make a rule. I guess after several years of A380 success and B787 delays that assumption didn't quite pan out the way many assumed it would. Frankly I wondered when something like this would be on the horizon back when the FAA started implementing self-testing and approval of safety regulations and quality assurance standards. Guess it was sooner rather than later.


----------



## Blackwolf

CNN is reporting as Breaking News that the FAA has issued an Airworthiness Directive effectively grounding the entire 787 fleet and forcing Boeing to halt assembly on all Dreamliners under construction until their investigation is completed.

_Really_ not good for Boeing.


----------



## Texan Eagle

The Davy Crockett said:


> And it continues... details here.


Oh come on.. Daily Mail? That place is Fox News x 10 times when it comes to sensationalizing non-events.

You can figure out how seriously to take this news when the first statement calls the 787 a "plastic plane" :angry2:


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Texan Eagle said:


> Oh come on.. Daily Mail? That place is Fox News x 10 times when it comes to sensationalizing non-events.


Thus the news about the Qatar Airlines flight being cancelled is completely invalid because someone does not like the source. hboy:


----------



## jis

As I had mentioned way back in the thread, the battery issues, unless resolved quickly, will result in an AD. And so it did. Except that the most recent battery issue was way more critical than the Boston one. It involved the main battery. So understandably the AD involved grounding.

(null)


----------



## Texan Eagle

The Davy Crockett said:


> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on.. Daily Mail? That place is Fox News x 10 times when it comes to sensationalizing non-events.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the news about the Qatar Airlines flight being cancelled is completely invalid because someone does not like the source. hboy:
Click to expand...

I never said the news is invalid, find me a statement that says so if you can. All I said was, Daily Mail has the reputation for jacking up and sensationalizing most trivial of non-matters. Read the article. More than once they emphasize that this is a "plastic plane" as if that has got something to do with the problems, and none of the captions with the photos match the photos, they are generic sensational one liners.

That being said, at least the news they are reporting is true. Qatar Airways indeed grounded one Dreamliner, followed now by FAA instructing all Dreamliners in the US to be grounded, and from latest reports, Air India has grounded its entire Dreamliner fleet too.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

This has just sent the 787 down the same path as Electra and DC-10. What may turn out to be a great plane has just been made into a demon as far as the commom flying public is concerned. The typical LCD news consumer has heard nothing but bad and is now convinced to stay away from 787.


----------



## Texan Eagle

OlympianHiawatha said:


> The typical LCD news consumer has heard nothing but bad and is now convinced to stay away from 787.


Good. That way people who'd really be interested in flying on this technologically marvelous plane might get cheaper tickets and/or choice of seats. I, for one, am very keen on flying on a Dreamliner as soon as I can.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

OlympianHiawatha said:


> This has just sent the 787 down the same path as Electra and DC-10. What may turn out to be a great plane has just been made into a demon as far as the commom flying public is concerned. The typical LCD news consumer has heard nothing but bad and is now convinced to stay away from 787.


The common flying public has no clue what aircraft they flew yesterday, or in the previous ten years for that matter, let alone what they'll be flying tomorrow. Take away the logos and most folks would probably never know. Thousands of lives have been lost to various 747 variants and yet there's no lasting public outrage over it. The DC-10 and MD-80 both suffered from designs that resulted in critical single failure points and yet the MD-80 is still with us to this very day.



Texan Eagle said:


> That way people who'd really be interested in flying on this technologically marvelous plane might get cheaper tickets and/or choice of seats. I, for one, am very keen on flying on a Dreamliner as soon as I can.


I've flown 727's, 737's, 747's, 757's, 767's, and 777's, but no 787's. I'm pretty sure I'll get my chance sooner or later. I also want to try the A380 some day as well. Unfortunately I've long since missed my chance to fly the L-1011 and DC-10/MD-11 in scheduled service.


----------



## jis

For a balanced factual time line of events and where things stand now I recommend this article:

http://www.airlinereporter.com/2013/01/a-recap-the-boeing-787-dreamliner-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

There will be next to no effect on public acceptance of the 787. What makes the airline industry as safe as it is, is exactly this sort of early and aggressive addressing of problems.

As you can see from the report above and from the FAA AD, the main issue at hand is LI Ion batteries and the effectiveness of the containment structure around it. The exact cause of failures at a rate higher than expected is also apparently under study. The next couple of weeks should be interesting.

As far as flying in planes go, I have pretty much flown each major western model of large jets that is flying today except the 380, and of course a few that are not flying today too like the 707, DC-8, DC-10, L1011, Caravelle, BAC 1-11, Super VC10 and Convair 990. I have never flown on a Convair 880.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

"...the news they are reporting is true."

Which was why I cited the article. I didn't realize that I needed to only cite sources that pass 'the sniff test' by a peer review committee here at AU, even if the reason I cited the article was factual. Now that said, I did not make it clear why I was citing the article, but given the circumstances as they unfolded yesterday, I assumed that people would figure out the context, as the quote above would seem to bear out.


----------



## jis

Current status of all delivered 787s:

http://www.ch-aviation.ch/blog/2013/01/17/current-status-of-b787-8-operations/

incidentally it is intriguing how many railroad related forums are discussing the 787. Afterall given its target market it will have exactly zero impact on Amtrak or any other passenger railroad in any western country for that matter (The use of 787 by United on domestic legs is just an interim training thing pending introduction on international segments) until of course railroads get into the business of doing nonstop stages greater than 2000 miles (potentially upto 8000 miles) mostly across oceans. Japan is a different matter, where the 787 indeed serves on routes that could potentially be served by the Shinkansen, but does not have enough traffic to justify the cost of using Shinkansen, in addition to competing head to head with Shinkansen on some routes.


----------



## jis

I found this document that lists 787 parts that are supplied by Hamilton Sundstrand:

http://www.hamiltonsundstrand.com/StaticFiles/HS/Communications/General/Documents/787%20Fact%20Sheet_June%202011.pdf

Looks like the Rolls-Royce bearings have failed as have some unspecified set of parts of the electrical management system.

I understand that Thales is a subcontractor for certain components of the parts delivered by H/S.


----------



## trainman74

Devil's Advocate said:


> Unfortunately I've long since missed my chance to fly the L-1011 and DC-10/MD-11 in scheduled service.


For a number of years, Delta had a TPA-ATL-LGW flight that was regularly operated by an L-1011, and I ended up on the TPA-ATL leg several times. I remember always seeing the TPA baggage handlers loading box after box labeled "tropical fish" into the pressurized portion of the hold, apparently bound for fish tanks across the Atlantic.

(I know I've flown on a DC-10 as well, but don't remember specifics.)


----------



## Texan Eagle

trainman74 said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately I've long since missed my chance to fly the L-1011 and DC-10/MD-11 in scheduled service.
> 
> 
> 
> For a number of years, Delta had a TPA-ATL-LGW flight that was regularly operated by an L-1011, and I ended up on the TPA-ATL leg several times. I remember always seeing the TPA baggage handlers loading box after box labeled "tropical fish" into the pressurized portion of the hold, apparently bound for fish tanks across the Atlantic.
> 
> (I know I've flown on a DC-10 as well, but don't remember specifics.)
Click to expand...


You guys were lucky, you got to fly on these exotic birds. I have only flown so far on Boeing 717, 737, 747 and 777, Airbus A318, A319, A320, A321, A330 and Mc-Donnell Douglas MD-80 series.

On my wishlist currently is to fly on 787 Dreamliner, A380, A340 and MD-11 (the last few remaining tri-jet still in mainline commercial service).


----------



## leemell

OlympianHiawatha said:


> This has just sent the 787 down the same path as Electra and DC-10. What may turn out to be a great plane has just been made into a demon as far as the commom flying public is concerned. The typical LCD news consumer has heard nothing but bad and is now convinced to stay away from 787.


I'm not so sure about that. The Electra had two unexplainable crashes from high altitude. It took virtually the entire airline manufacturer industry and NASA to find the proximate cause and it took months of aerodynamic investigation to find the the root cause (a case of what was called "whirl mode vibration of the props coupling to the wing spar at certain speeds and prop RPM). Boeing appears to know the proximate cause right now and needs to find the root cause. One thing about the 787 manufacture is that the delays in certification caused about 50 planes to be built before it was signed off. Most of the non-operational problems are on the Japanese airplanes and they took all of the early deliveries. There probably are manufacturing and configuration differences involved here.


----------



## jis

United also found the power system wiring harness wired incorrectly on two of its 787s and corrected them. So there are some manufacturing defects even in the not so early birds. United's earliest is frame 45 which was actually the 5th one delivered to United I think.


----------



## Trogdor

Not only that, but the Japan Airlines jet that had the fire was only a few weeks old, having been delivered in December, 2012, well over a year after the first plane was delivered.

That said, I don't know exactly when it was built, and whether it sat on a flight line for a couple of years waiting for rework before entering service.


----------



## jis

Trogdor said:


> Not only that, but the Japan Airlines jet that had the fire was only a few weeks old, having been delivered in December, 2012, well over a year after the first plane was delivered.
> That said, I don't know exactly when it was built, and whether it sat on a flight line for a couple of years waiting for rework before entering service.


If it was delivered in December it was line number 84, since that is the only one that JAL got in December, very very newly built.

One of the current surmises is that the problem may be with a batch of battery controller units which monitors the charging and discharging. Apparently even slightly overcharged batteries are prone to self destruction. But it is all speculation at this point..


----------



## CHamilton

jis said:


> One of the current surmises is that the problem may be with a batch of battery controller units which monitors the charging and discharging. Apparently even slightly overcharged batteries are prone to self destruction. But it is all speculation at this point..


Here's a short primer on lithium-ion batteries, and how they might go wrong.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Those are rather large lithium batteries and seem to have a flimsier structure than lithium batteries found in some electric and hybrid vehicles. I guess weight was the primary issue they were targeting. Considering how quickly a fire can become a critical event on an aircraft I would think this issue could use some serious modification regardless of the battery supplier.


----------



## CHamilton

Indeed they are huge. Here's another article discussing the issue in somewhat more detail.


----------



## jis

Some facts: http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/boeing-dreamliner-faa-battery-idINDEE90G03B20130117

Incidentally I found this post on airliners.net very informative regarding Li-Ion batteries and speculations related to the 787 incidents.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Lithium-ion batteries are rather temperamental compared to more conventional battery designs. The reason we don't worry about them being dangerous in our homes or on our person is because any lithium-ion battery large enough to do any serious damage also comes with relatively advanced electronic monitoring and control circuitry designed to prevent any critical failures. Unfortunately the underlying technology is still volatile and when the monitoring and control circuity fails it can bring disastrous results. The stories you hear of portable devices and laptops bursting into flames when accidentally overcharged is not a joke. It really happens. Luckily it's generally pretty rare and doesn't normally result in loss of life or limb. However, on a plane the potential for death and destruction caused by any sort of fire or extreme heat is much higher than here on the ground and the design of the cells and the control hardware needs to as close to foolproof as possible. Something in the design of the cells or the circuitry has apparently been missed. The root cause could be anyone's guess at this moment, but until it's discovered and resolved I think grounding the fleet was the right move by the FAA and other regulators. No need to watch a 787 go down before taking preemptive action this time around. The fact that this many failures made it into a production aircraft is a major lapse in our regulatory system in my view, but at least the regulators got the reaction to these failures right by working to prevent any more of them until we understood the cause and had a solution lined up.


----------



## leemell

Devil's Advocate said:


> Those are rather large lithium batteries and seem to have a flimsier structure than lithium batteries found in some electric and hybrid vehicles. I guess weight was the primary issue they were targeting. Considering how quickly a fire can become a critical event on an aircraft I would think this issue could use some serious modification regardless of the battery supplier.


A report that i read today and can't find now says the ramp fire after landing was in a battery that was both under heavy load and being recharged at that time. We will know a lot more after the NTSB and the labs dig into it.


----------



## CHamilton

> Boeing has idea to fix 787 battery problem
> 
> SEATTLE – KING 5 News has learned that Boeing has a serious idea in the works to deal with the problem of 787 battery fires in the future: better containment and better venting.
> 
> .....
> 
> But the current smoke venting plan has run into a headwind with the NTSB and even the FAA, with the grounding of the fleet of 50 Dreamliners worldwide. Is there a better way?
> 
> Sources say that Boeing is seriously considering a better containment system that solves both the collateral damage to other sensitive equipment and deals with the smoke better. The plan is to build a stronger and larger containment box or dome around the battery, and vent smoke and potential debris overboard through a hose or other channel.


----------



## Blackwolf

CHamilton said:


> Boeing has idea to fix 787 battery problem
> 
> SEATTLE – KING 5 News has learned that Boeing has a serious idea in the works to deal with the problem of 787 battery fires in the future: better containment and better venting.
> 
> .....
> 
> But the current smoke venting plan has run into a headwind with the NTSB and even the FAA, with the grounding of the fleet of 50 Dreamliners worldwide. Is there a better way?
> 
> Sources say that Boeing is seriously considering a better containment system that solves both the collateral damage to other sensitive equipment and deals with the smoke better. The plan is to build a stronger and larger containment box or dome around the battery, and vent smoke and potential debris overboard through a hose or other channel.
Click to expand...

Oh boy. As a layman, but one who has several years of experience working in and around both fixed wing and rotorwing aircraft, this is how I read Boeing's new idea. "We don't know whats wrong with the battery, nor are we able to really fix it. So! We'll just put a containment wall around the thing and call it good!"

Of course, a story aired to the public through TV never has the meaty details that shed some real light on the subject (watered-down entertainment only.) But if one were to use this story at face value:

Great idea. Wall it up, hide it, and pipe the smoke outside. :wacko:


----------



## jis

I think Boeing at this point is throwing up any bunch of possibilities to get a quick resolution, but I think given the situation they will fail to get buyin from the regulatory authorities of multiple countries involved, with these patchup schemes, and will have to hunker down and actually find the reason for the failure first.

McNearny is probably fighting for his own survival and putting appropriate pressure on Boeing engineers. but I doubt that NTSB and FAA will buy into any of these schemes, not to mention the European and Japaneses regulators.

Currently being studied in great detail are the BMS (Battery Management System) and also the basic design of the batteries, what with the Tesla guy and an MIT Professor joining the fray, possibly partly to raise their own visibility. But then again they may have a point. There is apparently quite a while to go before the proverbial fat lady sings on this one I am afraid.


----------



## railiner

This issue brings to mind the problems laptop computer's had with lithium batteries overheating. It seems that finally was resolved, or went away.....

I have no idea whatsoever if there is any relationship between the two, but who knows?


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

Devil's Advocate said:


> Unfortunately I've long since missed my chance to fly the L-1011 and DC-10/MD-11 in scheduled service.


You might be able to add the Concorde to that list too.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

railiner said:


> This issue brings to mind the problems laptop computer's had with lithium batteries overheating. It seems that finally was resolved, or went away.....I have no idea whatsoever if there is any relationship between the two, but who knows?


And the Chevy Volt had its day in the news spotlight over its lithium batteries reportedly causing fires.


----------



## CHamilton

> Report: Boeing has fix for 787 battery problem
> 
> Boeing has found a way to fix its battery problems with the grounded 787, Reuters reports.
> 
> A company source said the fix involves increasing the space between cells of the lithium ion batteries in order to prevent overheating. The fix could put the planes back in service by mid-March, according to the source.
> Meanwhile, a probe into the overheating of a lithium ion battery in an All Nippon Airways 787 found it was improperly wired, Japan's Transport Ministry said Wednesday.


----------



## jis

CHamilton said:


> Report: Boeing has fix for 787 battery problem
> 
> Boeing has found a way to fix its battery problems with the grounded 787, Reuters reports.
> 
> A company source said the fix involves increasing the space between cells of the lithium ion batteries in order to prevent overheating. The fix could put the planes back in service by mid-March, according to the source.
> 
> Meanwhile, a probe into the overheating of a lithium ion battery in an All Nippon Airways 787 found it was improperly wired, Japan's Transport Ministry said Wednesday.
Click to expand...

It has been reported on airliners.net by knowledgeable sources that United found improper wiring of batteries in three of the six aircraft delivered to them so far(!) and corrected the wiring before putting the aircraft into operation for the last two. One was discovered after the emergency landing in New Orleans.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

The plural of aircraft is still aircraft.


----------



## GG-1

railiner said:


> This issue brings to mind the problems laptop computer's had with lithium batteries overheating. It seems that finally was resolved, or went away.....I have no idea whatsoever if there is any relationship between the two, but who knows?


Aloha

In theater we use lots of lithium batteries. In a recipient trade publication there was a 4 or 5 page article on the safe handling in using these batteries.


----------



## jis

Suffice it to say that even the LI-Ion battery used in Tesla is small compared to the giant that is used in the 787. Basically it looks like they have to redo the physical design to enable better dissipation of heat and also better monitoring of temp on a per cell basis and be able to shut things off when overheating is detected at a lower threshold. And of course containment and venting has to be improved too. And wiring the darned thing right would help a lot too!


----------



## CHamilton

> _The Wall Street Journal_ is reporting that Boeing will propose a 10-item suite of temporary fixes to the FAA on Friday that are intended to address problems with the plane's lithium-ion batteries. A new fireproof enclosure, checklists for the cockpit crew, and a different venting system are said to be among the short-term items, while a redesign of the batteries themselves is also included as a long-term solution. The redesign will reportedly utilize measurements of both temperature and voltage changes in the battery cells themselves.That said, the root cause of the plane's battery problems is still undetermined — leading to the possibility that the full investigation could continue on for years. According to the_WSJ_, Boeing hopes the fixes will allow it to get the Dreamliner back into the air for commercial flights; the plane has been grounded by the FAA since January.


http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/20/4010244/boeing-reportedly-present-787-dreamliner-battery-fixes-to-faa-this-week


----------



## leemell

jis said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Report: Boeing has fix for 787 battery problem
> 
> Boeing has found a way to fix its battery problems with the grounded 787, Reuters reports.
> 
> A company source said the fix involves increasing the space between cells of the lithium ion batteries in order to prevent overheating. The fix could put the planes back in service by mid-March, according to the source.
> 
> Meanwhile, a probe into the overheating of a lithium ion battery in an All Nippon Airways 787 found it was improperly wired, Japan's Transport Ministry said Wednesday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been reported on airliners.net by knowledgeable sources that United found improper wiring of batteries in three of the six aircraft delivered to them so far(!) and corrected the wiring before putting the aircraft into operation for the last two. One was discovered after the emergency landing in New Orleans.
Click to expand...

I just heard a report that the Japan Airline plane that had the battery fire on the ground was also found to have a wiring error.


----------



## CHamilton

Battery Failure and the 787 Dreamliner



> Previous aircraft have had other types of batteries on board, such as the 777 with nickel cadmium batteries, but this battery chemistry wasn't good enough for what Boeing wanted to do with the 787. NiCd batteries have a low energy density, so they end up weighing a lot, which is antithetical to the 787's lightweight designs. What's more, after many charging cycles, NiCd batteries suffer from the memory effect that effectively reduces the energy capacity. Perhaps most importantly, NiCd batteries also can't deliver electricity very quickly, so applications like starting a jet engine aren't practical. Li-ion batteries are more energy-dense, have better power delivery, and don't suffer from the memory effect, so they offer many tangible advantages over NiCd that enable them to be used in new, interesting ways on the 787.
> 
> There is one downside for Li-ion batteries, however. They have been known to occasionally burst into flames, seemingly at random. But we live in a physical world where batteries don't just spontaneously combust without a reason; these failures happen because something has gone awry in the battery or its design. To understand what's happening, first we need to talk a little bit about how batteries work.


----------



## CHamilton

Reports of Boeing 787 test flights "completely inaccurate": FAA



> (Reuters) - The Federal Aviation Administration said it is not close to approving test flights of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner with a proposed fix for the plane's troubled batteries, denying news reports that such tests could start as early as next week.
> "Reports that we are close to allowing 787 test flights are completely inaccurate," spokeswoman Laura Brown said on Tuesday in an email to Reuters.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

When they fix the problem, maybe Boeing should develop a new mini-787 for long-range, low-capacity flights. They would be a hit with the money-strapped airlines that are everywhere these days.

These problems do seem more serious than issues that the 777 had.


----------



## Blackwolf

To put a different spin on the upcoming sequester, I wonder if some of the key FAA players in this re-certification process for the 787 are on the furlough list?


----------



## Texan Eagle

Swadian Hardcore said:


> These problems do seem more serious than issues that the 777 had.


What issues did the 777 have? If I remember correctly, the 777 had one of the smoothest problem-free entry into service for any aircraft type and to this day it maintains an incredible safety record of *zero* passenger fatalities over millions of flights and over 1000 aircraft taking it to the air.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Texan Eagle said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> These problems do seem more serious than issues that the 777 had.
> 
> 
> 
> What issues did the 777 have? If I remember correctly, the 777 had one of the smoothest problem-free entry into service for any aircraft type and to this day it maintains an incredible safety record of *zero* passenger fatalities over millions of flights and over 1000 aircraft taking it to the air.
Click to expand...

IDK, but someone said "these problems are no different than the ones the 777 had when it enterted service."


----------



## CHamilton

> Boeing 787 battery fire was difficult to control
> WASHINGTON (AP) — Firefighters and mechanics tried repeatedly to put out a battery fire aboard a Boeing 787 Dreamliner through smoke so thick they couldn't see the battery, according to documents released Thursday that portray the incident as more serious than previously described.
> 
> The Jan. 7 fire at Boston's Logan International Airport is under investigation by the National Transportation Safety board, which released laboratory analyses, interviews and other data it has gathered so far. It still hasn't been able to pinpoint the cause.
> 
> Federal Aviation Administration officials are expected to make a decision in the next few days on whether to approve a plan by Boeing to revamp the 787's lithium ion batteries to prevent or contain future fires. Once the plan is approved, Boeing hopes to swiftly test the reconfigured batteries and get the planes back in the air.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

The 777 was designed before the FAA put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Now Boeing and their partners do their own self-certifications.

Apparently we're already enjoying the fruits of this new policy.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Devil's Advocate said:


> The 777 was designed before the FAA put the fox in charge of the henhouse.
> Now Boeing and their partners do their own self-certifications.
> 
> Apparently we're already enjoying the fruits of this new policy.


There's another reason to dislike new planes.


----------



## railiner

Swadian Hardcore said:


> There's another reason to dislike new planes.


Yeah! Bring back the DC-3!


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

railiner said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's another reason to dislike new planes.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah! Bring back the DC-3!
Click to expand...


----------



## PRR 60

From the Wall Street Journal, 3/12/2013:



> U.S. aviation safety investigators examining Boeing Co.'s Dreamliner increasingly are focusing on manufacturing or design problems with the batteries as possible causes of overheating rather than on other parts of the jet's electrical system, the head of the National Transportation Safety Board said Monday.


The full story is HERE. (WSJ subscription may be required. Google "Dreamliner News" for link that may bypass the paywall.)


----------



## jis

FAA approved Boeing's plan to fix the batter problem on the 787 this Tuesday....



> A Boeing plan to redesign the 787 Dreamliner's fire-plagued lithium-ion batteries won approval Tuesday from the Federal Aviation Administration, moving the cutting-edge planes a step closer to flying passengers again.
> 
> The plan includes changes to the internal battery components to minimize the possibility of short-circuiting, which can lead to overheating and cause a fire. Among the changes are better insulation of the battery's eight cells and the addition of a new containment and venting system, the FAA said in a statement.
> 
> The FAA statement didn't provide an estimate for when the grounded planes might return to service. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., who was briefed by the agency, said that if all goes well, the FAA could give final approval by mid- to late April for the 787 to resume flight.
> 
> Boeing would still have to retrofit the 50 planes already delivered to eight airlines in seven countries, Larsen said in an interview. That could mean the plane wouldn't return to the skies until late April or early May, he said.


Read the whole article at http://news.yahoo.com/faa-approves-boeing-plan-fix-220605784.html


----------



## jis

Here's the full FAA Press Release:



> The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today approved the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company's certification plan for the redesigned 787 battery system, after thoroughly reviewing Boeing's proposed modifications and the company's plan to demonstrate that the system will meet FAA requirements. The certification plan is the first step in the process to evaluate the 787's return to flight and requires Boeing to conduct extensive testing and analysis to demonstrate compliance with the applicable safety regulations and special conditions."This comprehensive series of tests will show us whether the proposed battery improvements will work as designed," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "We won't allow the plane to return to service unless we're satisfied that the new design ensures the safety of the aircraft and its passengers."
> 
> The battery system improvements include a redesign of the internal battery components to minimize initiation of a short circuit within the battery, better insulation of the cells and the addition of a new containment and venting system.
> 
> "We are confident the plan we approved today includes all the right elements to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the battery system redesign," said FAA Administrator Michael P. Huerta. "Today's announcement starts a testing process which will demonstrate whether the proposed fix will work as designed."
> 
> The certification plan requires a series of tests which must be passed before the 787 could return to service. The plan establishes specific pass/fail criteria, defines the parameters that should be measured, prescribes the test methodology and specifies the test setup and design. FAA engineers will be present for the testing and will be closely involved in all aspects of the process.
> 
> The FAA also has approved limited test flights for two aircraft. These aircraft will have the prototype versions of the new containment system installed. The purpose of the flight tests will be to validate the aircraft instrumentation for the battery and battery enclosure testing in addition to product improvements for other systems.
> 
> The FAA will approve the redesign only if the company successfully completes all required tests and analysis to demonstrate the new design complies with FAA requirements. The FAA's January 16, 2013 airworthiness directive, which required operators to temporarily cease 787 operations, is still in effect, and the FAA is continuing its comprehensive review of the 787 design, production and manufacturing process.


Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/boeing/article/FAA-OKs-plan-for-fixing-Boeing-787-battery-4348955.php#ixzz2NNclXicB


----------



## chakk

railiner said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's another reason to dislike new planes.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah! Bring back the DC-3!
Click to expand...

Rode both the DC-3 and the Boeing B-23 (twin engine version of the B-17) back in the 1970's, although both of these planes were being used in air pollution research (low level flying, slow speed) instead of commercial transport.


----------



## railiner

chakk said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's another reason to dislike new planes.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah! Bring back the DC-3!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rode both the DC-3 and the Boeing B-23 (twin engine version of the B-17) back in the 1970's, although both of these planes were being used in air pollution research (low level flying, slow speed) instead of commercial transport.
Click to expand...

Back sometime in the 1980's, I took Amtrak's Cape Codder from NYP to Hyannis. I then flew on Provincetown - Boston Airlines N136PB, their world record-holding DC-3, with over 80,000 hours logged, over to Boston, then home on the NEC. A very memorable trip.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> FAA approved Boeing's plan to fix the batter problem on the 787 this Tuesday....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Boeing plan to redesign the 787 Dreamliner's fire-plagued lithium-ion batteries won approval Tuesday from the Federal Aviation Administration, moving the cutting-edge planes a step closer to flying passengers again.
> 
> The plan includes changes to the internal battery components to minimize the possibility of short-circuiting, which can lead to overheating and cause a fire. Among the changes are better insulation of the battery's eight cells and the addition of a new containment and venting system, the FAA said in a statement.
> 
> The FAA statement didn't provide an estimate for when the grounded planes might return to service. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., who was briefed by the agency, said that if all goes well, the FAA could give final approval by mid- to late April for the 787 to resume flight.
> 
> Boeing would still have to retrofit the 50 planes already delivered to eight airlines in seven countries, Larsen said in an interview. That could mean the plane wouldn't return to the skies until late April or early May, he said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the whole article at http://news.yahoo.com/faa-approves-boeing-plan-fix-220605784.html
Click to expand...

Certainly good news. Let's hope the flight-testing goes well, and the Dreamliner's are back in service, soon.....


----------



## jis

If all goes perfectly, which seldom happens, they are saying late April or early May for certification and then whatever it takes to retrofit 50 planes.

Boeing says it will use ZA005 and LN86 for FAA flight tests.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

While aboard #92 yesterday I read in the print version of USA Today - here is a link to the article -



> The other plane will conduct tests on improving the engine that the company says are unrelated to the battery issue.


HUH? :huh:  :huh:

*IF* this is correct, are there some concerns about the engines too? :huh:


----------



## jis

The Davy Crockett said:


> While aboard #92 yesterday I read in the print version of USA Today - here is a link to the article -
> 
> 
> 
> The other plane will conduct tests on improving the engine that the company says are unrelated to the battery issue.
> 
> 
> 
> HUH? :huh:  :huh:
> 
> *IF* this is correct, are there some concerns about the engines too? :huh:
Click to expand...

No. That is apparently about testing uprated engines for use in the yet to be announced 787-10 to meet Mr. Udvar Hazy's demands on range.

Since they need FAA's permission to fly any 787s at present, that other set of test flights was included as part of this program to use a single umbrella clearance to fly test planes.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

The Davy Crockett said:


> While aboard #92 yesterday I read in the print version of USA Today - here is a link to the article -
> 
> 
> 
> The other plane will conduct tests on improving the engine that the company says are unrelated to the battery issue.
> 
> 
> 
> HUH? :huh:  :huh:
> 
> *IF* this is correct, are there some concerns about the engines too? :huh:
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any engine related safety concerns.

Performance concerns (fuel vs. thrust) are typical for new engine designs and bleedless is about as new as it gets for commercial aviation.

For me this was the key part of the article...



> Ricardo Martinez-Cid, an aviation trial lawyer with the Miami firm Podhurst Orseck, called it heartening that Boeing developed a fix for the revolutionary plane. But he said the *FAA relies heavily on manufacturers when certifying new aircraft*, so he would like to see the data that justify returning the plane to the sky and convincing travelers that the plane is safe. "The question is how much care and attention were given to the problem and to correcting it, before getting back out to market," Martinez-Cid said. "We know what a huge effect on the bottom line this is for Boeing. There's always going to be a degree of skepticism inherent in any fix. They should really take some extra steps in making sure that they're doing it right."


This annoys me to no end. Maybe we need to cut our _greater than all other nations *combined*_ military spending spree and redirect some of that wasted money into independently certifying new aircraft instead of just pretending the manufacturer can somehow ignore their own conflicts of interest and hold themselves accountable. So many of America's problems today are self-created. Yet we can't seem to make any progress on actually resolving them.


----------



## PRR 60

The Davy Crockett said:


> While aboard #92 yesterday I read in the print version of USA Today - here is a link to the article -
> 
> 
> 
> The other plane will conduct tests on improving the engine that the company says are unrelated to the battery issue.
> 
> 
> 
> HUH? :huh:  :huh:
> 
> *IF* this is correct, are there some concerns about the engines too? :huh:
Click to expand...

The tests are to evaluate tweeks to the engines to improve performance.


----------



## PRR 60

Boeing will have a live webcast of a technical briefing about the 787 at 9pm EDT today (3/14/13). The webcast can be viewed at the following site:

http://787updates.newairplane.com/Certification/Webcast


----------



## jis

I watched that live webcast in its entirety. This blog at flightglobal contains a pretty concise report from that news conference which was held in Japan early this morning Japan time, and of course as mentioned above at 9pm last night US time.


----------



## PRR 60

I watched it as well. I thought the Boeing people did a pretty good job and the presenters seemed knew the nuts and bolts of the issue and were not just reading bullet points from the slides (amazing for top-level suits). Correctly or not, I came away feeling more confident about the 787.


----------



## leemell

PRR 60 said:


> I watched it as well. I thought the Boeing people did a pretty good job and the presenters seemed knew the nuts and bolts of the issue and were not just reading bullet points from the slides (amazing for top-level suits). Correctly or not, I came away feeling more confident about the 787.


Many of top-level suits at Boeing came from engineering.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Baby steps instead of ETOPS for the Dreamliner?


----------



## jis

This one apparently is idle speculation on part of people trying to churn up some news. At least that is the impression I am getting reading the associated discussion in airliners,net. It would be odd to affect ETOPS when a battery failure did not require diversion in the original ETOPS certification. But hey, you never know when technical considerations take a back seat. either


----------



## jis

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/05/us-boeing-dreamliner-lahood-idUSBRE9340LN20130405

The modified battery test flight took place this morning (April 5, 2013) PDT.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE272


----------



## GG-1

jis said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/05/us-boeing-dreamliner-lahood-idUSBRE9340LN20130405
> The modified battery test flight took place this morning (April 5, 2013) PDT.
> 
> http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE272


Only The Battery!

I am Glad I know Jisnu so the story is worth reading.

Aloha And Mahalo


----------



## leemell

AV Week reported on the current status of testing and this on repair of grounded 787s in Japan. They have completed certification testing including full, massive overload to 8 cells thermal runaway. I'd like to see that. The new enclosure is stainless steel and the vent system is titanium.


----------



## jis

A fully contained full blown thermal runaway test must have been quite impressive!


----------



## railiner

Well British Airways must be confident....they just ordered an addional 18 787's, to their originally ordered 24, with options for more....


----------



## Devil's Advocate

After reading numerous articles and poring over photos I've come to the conclusion that the 787's battery issue was a major oversight that should have been caught long before it threatened a production aircraft in revenue service. I'm not the kind of person who will go out of my way to avoid the 787 due to non-fatal incidents, but my confidence in the regulatory approval process has dropped considerably over time. Maybe this incident will become a lesson to those who keep pushing for less and less oversight on the premise that self-regulation is more than sufficient.


----------



## railiner

Devil's Advocate said:


> After reading numerous articles and poring over photos I've come to the conclusion that the 787's battery issue was a major oversight that should have been caught long before it threatened a production aircraft in revenue service. I'm not the kind of person who will go out of my way to avoid the 787 due to non-fatal incidents, but my confidence in the regulatory approval process has dropped considerably over time. Maybe this incident will become a lesson to those who keep pushing for less and less oversight on the premise that self-regulation is more than sufficient.


I haven't done the extensive research that you have, but I am wondering if they had done it the way you advocate with stronger government oversight, would they have found that, or possibly other design flaws, for sure?

And at what point would testing and oversight be 'sufficient' before placing new designs into service? All the oversight in the world, and some things will go unseen for a long time before appearing....


----------



## leemell

railiner said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> After reading numerous articles and poring over photos I've come to the conclusion that the 787's battery issue was a major oversight that should have been caught long before it threatened a production aircraft in revenue service. I'm not the kind of person who will go out of my way to avoid the 787 due to non-fatal incidents, but my confidence in the regulatory approval process has dropped considerably over time. Maybe this incident will become a lesson to those who keep pushing for less and less oversight on the premise that self-regulation is more than sufficient.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't done the extensive research that you have, but I am wondering if they had done it the way you advocate with stronger government oversight, would they have found that, or possibly other design flaws, for sure?
> 
> And at what point would testing and oversight be 'sufficient' before placing new designs into service? All the oversight in the world, and some things will go unseen for a long time before appearing....
Click to expand...

When to stop testing is one the most famous and difficult questions for system and test engineers. There have been many a paper trying to define and quantify the answer to that question in many engineering disciplines without coming to any definitive general answer. Cynicism on --- in actual practice It is usually answered when the schedule runs out of time and the budget runs out of money.


----------



## jis

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020717470_787flighttestxml.html

Wow! Looks like one of the tests involved creating a propane gas explosion inside the containment vessel and completely containing it!

As for testing, in most cases the tests are designed to test for anticipated failure modes. It is hard to design tests for unknown failure modes. Often such is discovered after prolonged operation. The poster child example of that was the Comet 1. It was not like anyone was maliciously avoiding testing it enough. It is just that the state of the art of understanding metal fatigue was not developed enough to anticipate that mode of failure to try testing for it. As a matter of fact initially those failures were recieved with utter bafflement. A series of ingenious tests in water tank running a fuselage through a zillion cycles quickly finally established what the problem was.

In this case what is known is the total of amount of energy release that must be contained to contain a failure. Fortunately the amount of energy is small enough to be able to design a brute force technique to contain it, while taking additional design steps to reduce the chance of requiring such containment.

If many of you ever learn about some of the software fixes that are applied to keep semi-critical systems going while the real fix is worked on, you'd probably all have a collective apoplectic fit. But such is the world of engineering. It is as much about failure prevention by design as it is about mitigation and containbment by design should a failure occur.


----------



## leemell

jis, Amen!


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020717470_787flighttestxml.html
> Wow! Looks like one of the tests involved creating a propane gas explosion inside the containment vessel and completely containing it!
> 
> As for testing, in most cases the tests are designed to test for anticipated failure modes. It is hard to design tests for unknown failure modes. Often such is discovered after prolonged operation. The poster child example of that was the Comet 1. It was not like anyone was maliciously avoiding testing it enough. It is just the the state of the art of understanding metal fatigue was not developed enough to anticipate that mode of failure to try testing for it. As a matter of fact initially those failures were reived with utter bafflement. Finally a series of ingenious tests in water tank running a fuselage through a zillioncycles quickly finally establsihed what the porblem was.
> 
> In this case what is known is the total of amount of energy that just be contained to contain a failure, and fortunately the amount of energy is small enough to be able to design a brute force technique to contain it, while taking additional design steps to reduce the chance of requiring such containment.
> 
> If many of you ever learn about some of the software fixes that are applied to keep semi-critical systems going while the real fix is worked on, you'd probably all have a collective apoplectic fit. But such is the world of engineering. It is as much about failure prevention as it is about mitigation and containbment should a failure occur.


Reminds me of those classic films--'No Highway In The Sky', and 'Fate Is The Hunter'.....


----------



## jis

FAA has has apparently approved the 787 battery fix.

Rumor has it that they may be back in the air as early as 24th April. It also got back its ETOPS 180. So it is back to where it was the day before the AD came out grounding it.

http://www.komonews.com/news/boeing/FAA-to-approve-resumption-of-Boeing-787-flights-203806081.html


----------



## Geoffry

Did Amtrak source some of these refurbished batteries? Had battery box fires on 4/12/13 Friday Morning on the Silver Star 91 before making it into Columbia, SC


----------



## jis

The 787 Battery AD was lifted today by FAA, allowing United to start flying their 787s as soon as they complete the required modifications to the battery in their 787s.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/25/us-boeing-dreamliner-idUSBRE93O0NI20130425


----------



## leemell

Av Week is reporting that Boeing has completed 10 planes as of yesterday and will have all operating aircraft and undelivered aircraft done by May 11th.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I'm glad they've taken steps to prevent and contain future fires. Although it's a little curious that they were apparently never able to fully determine the root cause. Has anyone here flown the 787 as of yet? I enjoy flying new aircraft but I rarely go out of my way to do so. I have some TPAC flights planned for later in the year on the 77W.


----------



## saxman

I flew on it last December from ORD to IAH. Nice ride. Just don't get caught in the seats right behind an exit door. Because of the slide compartment, it sticks out into your knee room and you literally have to turn to the side. Luckily I was upgraded at the last minute and enjoyed business class!


----------



## jis

I flew it in November EWR - IAH - EWR in BF.

Just heard on CNN that Japan has lifted it's ban. So ANA and JAL can fly them.


----------



## leemell

United Airlines started their first revenue flight this morning. Four planes are ready for service, 6 to go.


----------



## jis

Surely you meant to say 2 to go? Afterall United has taken delivery of only 6 of them so far, and I have flown on two of them!


----------



## leemell

Boeing announced yesterday that they have finished modification of all of the aircraft and only a coupe of airlines have not yet put them back in service.


----------



## jis

Boeing also managed to sell 30 787-10s to Singapore Airlines yesterday, making it the launch customer for the ~330 passenger 787-10.


----------



## saxman

Just rode on the 787 again this week. Got a whole entire row to myself both ways between IAH and LAX. Watching those wings flex is amazing!


----------



## GG-1

saxman said:


> Just rode on the 787 again this week. Got a whole entire row to myself both ways between IAH and LAX. Watching those wings flex is amazing!


Just like a bird :giggle:

Aloha


----------



## jis

Actually it does look somewhat like a swan flexing its wing while gliding 

(null)


----------



## leemell

I've got about 200 hours in B-52s. If you want to see wing flex, watch them. The tips move up and down more than 14'. Without the tip gear the wings would drag on the ground when fully fueled. When they take off you can tell when they are ready for liftoff, the wings rise to a point almost even with the top of the fuselage. The 787 is a much prettier plane, but I still love the B-52.


----------



## Texan Eagle

jis said:


> Actually it does look somewhat like a swan flexing its wing while gliding


Went to San Jose (SJC) today morning to see the first Dreamliner arrive after the grounding. ANA flight from Tokyo Narita glided in beautifully on time and to my pleasant surprise, there was a big crowd of about 40 people just outside the airport perimeter to see and photograph the plane! Here are a couple of photos I took, you can see the bird-like wing flex-


----------



## saxman

Wow very nice shots!


----------



## train_person

Ethiopian Airlines 787 on fire at LHR this afternoon, looks like the dung will be hitting the fan big time in Seattle......


----------



## railiner

Uh, oh....


----------



## leemell

The fire was in an unoccupied plane near the the top of the fuselage just before the tail. Very puzzling as there are no real fire sources are located there.


----------



## PRR 60

leemell said:


> The fire was in an unoccupied plane near the the top of the fuselage just before the tail. Very puzzling as there are no real fire sources are located there.


There is a galley back there.

Seat Map


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Not again! This is gonna ruin the 787's reputation big time! If they don't iron out the problems, then I won't fly this airline-G4500.



train_person said:


> Ethiopian Airlines 787 on fire at LHR this afternoon, looks like the dung will be hitting the fan big time in Seattle......


Yeah, Boeing better develop the 777X or a new 767X soon. Right now they're gonna get all sprayed up with that dung. Teething problems won't explain this one well after the supposed "battery fix."


----------



## PRR 60

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Not again! This is gonna ruin the 787's reputation big time! If they don't iron out the problems, then I won't fly this airline-G4500.
> 
> 
> train_person said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ethiopian Airlines 787 on fire at LHR this afternoon, looks like the dung will be hitting the fan big time in Seattle......
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Boeing better develop the 777X or a new 767X soon. Right now they're gonna get all sprayed up with that dung. Teething problems won't explain this one well after the supposed "battery fix."
Click to expand...

One thing for sure. It was not the batteries. No batteries in that area. There is a galley right there, and there are heat sources in galleys. Just saying.


----------



## railiner

While the galley theory is the most plausible one for now, there are miles of wiring I would imagine, throughout the fuselage, and a fire could result from a short-circuit anywhere....


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

This is _*Electra *_and _*DC-10*_ all over again. Even though any problems those ships may have had were corrected and perfected the media hype and exposure already killed them off.


----------



## leemell

The Electra was done in by the Jet passenger aircraft that came out about the same time. The Electra was a turboprop. As the Navy P-3 Lockheed built 757, many of them are still in service 50 years later. The DC-10 was built for nearly 20 years Over 440 DC-10/KC-10 were built and considered a very successful aircraft. "The DC-10's lifetime safety record is comparable to similar second-generation passenger jets as of 2008." "Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents (1959-2008)." _Boeing._ This also the year that the last DC-10 flew with major carriers in revenue service.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

PRR 60 said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not again! This is gonna ruin the 787's reputation big time! If they don't iron out the problems, then I won't fly this airline-G4500.
> 
> 
> train_person said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ethiopian Airlines 787 on fire at LHR this afternoon, looks like the dung will be hitting the fan big time in Seattle......
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Boeing better develop the 777X or a new 767X soon. Right now they're gonna get all sprayed up with that dung. Teething problems won't explain this one well after the supposed "battery fix."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One thing for sure. It was not the batteries. No batteries in that area. There is a galley right there, and there are heat sources in galleys. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Well, they fixed the batteries and another kind of fire pops out. This just means even more problems.



OlympianHiawatha said:


> This is _*Electra *_and _*DC-10*_ all over again. Even though any problems those ships may have had were corrected and perfected the media hype and exposure already killed them off.


Electra was a bust, but the DC-10 sold fine. Right now the 787 orders are double the number of all DC-10s built, so I guess the airlines had more confidence in the 787 before all these issues.


----------



## jis

Swadian Hardcore said:


> OlympianHiawatha said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is _*Electra *_and _*DC-10*_ all over again. Even though any problems those ships may have had were corrected and perfected the media hype and exposure already killed them off.
> 
> 
> 
> Electra was a bust, but the DC-10 sold fine. Right now the 787 orders are double the number of all DC-10s built, so I guess the airlines had more confidence in the 787 before all these issues.
Click to expand...

Actually DC-10s went on to have a derivative MD-11 which sold many copies and are still flying in commercial service, more often as freighters than passenger carriers.
Unless something much more severe than what has been found so far strikes the 787 it has zero chance of being a failure. Many of you were not around when the 747 went into service. If you think this is problematic you'd have been convinced that the 747 would be discontinued within a year or two while Boeing started working on derivatives of 707s, if they had not already gone bankrupt and had been dissolved as a company.

Airlines still seem to have confidence in 787s since (a) they are still operating them and (b) placing more orders for them.

But of course what will happen in the future is anyone's guess.


----------



## Bob Dylan

train_person said:


> Ethiopian Airlines 787 on fire at LHR this afternoon, looks like the dung will be hitting the fan big time in Seattle......


Probably more Soiled Executive Pants in Chicago since Boeing now has their Headquarters in the Windy City!


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

jis said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OlympianHiawatha said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is _*Electra *_and _*DC-10*_ all over again. Even though any problems those ships may have had were corrected and perfected the media hype and exposure already killed them off.
> 
> 
> 
> Electra was a bust, but the DC-10 sold fine. Right now the 787 orders are double the number of all DC-10s built, so I guess the airlines had more confidence in the 787 before all these issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually DC-10s went on to have a derivative MD-11 which sold many copies and are still flying in commercial service, more often as freighters than passenger carriers.
> Unless something much more severe than what has been found so far strikes the 787 it has zero chance of being a failure. Many of you were not around when the 747 went into service. If you think this is problematic you'd have been convinced that the 747 would be discontinued within a year or two while Boeing started working on derivatives of 707s, if they had not already gone bankrupt and had been dissolved as a company.
> 
> Airlines still seem to have confidence in 787s since (a) they are still operating them and (b) placing more orders for them.
> 
> But of course what will happen in the future is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...

Arguably though, the MD-11 passenger version was a bust. Now only KLM operates it and they're getting rid of them in favour of more efficient aircraft.

Airlines will continue to buy and operate this efficient plane, but these media report will like undermine ridership, even though most people have no idea what type of plane they are flying on.

I can understand the 747 developmental problems, considering how large the aircraft was compared to anything previously built. I know the 787 is supposed to have revolutionary features, but the 747 only took four years from launch to introduction compared to eight years for the 787.


----------



## Texan Eagle

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Airlines will continue to buy and operate this efficient plane, but these media report will like undermine ridership, even though most people have no idea what type of plane they are flying on.


Do you have $10 to spare? Lets put in a bet- passengers or the industry at large is not going to see any "undermined ridership" due to these issues. Do a quick survey- ask ten people around you how many of them decide their tickets based on plane type, or even *know* what route is flown by a 787. If the airline offers a flight at a fare that the passenger wants, they will continue buying the tickets, doesn't matter if its a 787 or DC-10 for all you care. When I ask my friends if they know what plane they were on, their answer is invariably "just a normal one", or at best "big one" or "small one".


----------



## jis

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Arguably though, the MD-11 passenger version was a bust. Now only KLM operates it and they're getting rid of them in favour of more efficient aircraft.


The key word in that is "arguably" and it all depends on ones definition of bust. It did not sell a large number of copies, but the reason for that is that the time for tri-jets was already waning by the time the MD-11 came out, and the reason for tr-jets was pretty much going away. So I am not sure the issue was technical or passenger impression or anything like that, which was alleged for the "failure" of the DC-10. MD-11 was actually more of a creature of Mac-Dac's inability at that point to invest in a true next gen jumbo than anything else. It was sot of Mac-Dac's version of what Airbus originally tried to do in the way of the 350, before they redid the project after getting a swift kick or two from some of their larger customers.


> Airlines will continue to buy and operate this efficient plane, but these media report will like undermine ridership, even though most people have no idea what type of plane they are flying on.


My bet is unless one crashes and burns there will be zero effect on anything from media reports. Afterall it is not only the experts who laugh at some of the silly things that appear in the media these days. And non-experts do not bother to read anything that takes more than three cells of the brain to comprehend.  So no. There will be zero effect.


> I can understand the 747 developmental problems, considering how large the aircraft was compared to anything previously built. I know the 787 is supposed to have revolutionary features, but the 747 only took four years from launch to introduction compared to eight years for the 787.


In some sense the 787s development problems had three components
(a) Technical: Using complete fuselage barrels that are fabricated as a single unit. This is a first for such a large fuselage, and the technology for it had to be developed. In addition designing a totally "electric" plane with no use of bleed air for pressurization etc. The roots of the battery problems lie in this latter technical innovation.

(b) Organization: Extensive outsourcing and management of supply chains that come with it.

© Managerial: Chaos in Boeing executive suite specially in the early phases.

All three conspired to create quite a mess for a while and hence the extraordinary amount of time that it took to get things to settle down.

My idle hypothesis also is that Boeing was struggling for its existence when it was developing the 747, having way overcommitted themselves based on a promise of orders from Juan Tripp. So they were much more focused on building the thing, and were not involved in interesting latter day organizational experiments. Which made the progress of that particular project the centerpiece of their existence.

In contrast, the 787 was yet another project, albeit large. They felt comfortable enough to experiment with revolutionary logistical changes some of which worked and some did not. And at no time were they under any threat of going bankrupt. This caused them to be less focused and all over the place. The results are self-evident.


----------



## jis

Currently the center of attention of the investigation is reportedly the ELT (Emergency Location Transmitter) battery, which Lithium-Magnesium. The ELT is manufactured by Honywell and is used in many other aircrafts also.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Texan Eagle said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Airlines will continue to buy and operate this efficient plane, but these media report will like undermine ridership, even though most people have no idea what type of plane they are flying on.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have $10 to spare? Lets put in a bet- passengers or the industry at large is not going to see any "undermined ridership" due to these issues. Do a quick survey- ask ten people around you how many of them decide their tickets based on plane type, or even *know* what route is flown by a 787. If the airline offers a flight at a fare that the passenger wants, they will continue buying the tickets, doesn't matter if its a 787 or DC-10 for all you care. When I ask my friends if they know what plane they were on, their answer is invariably "just a normal one", or at best "big one" or "small one".
Click to expand...

But I did say that most people have no idea what type of plane they are flying on. So of course _most_ people don't know any sliver of difference between a 787 and a DC-10, or heck, they don't even know what a 747 is!



jis said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arguably though, the MD-11 passenger version was a bust. Now only KLM operates it and they're getting rid of them in favour of more efficient aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> The key word in that is "arguably" and it all depends on ones definition of bust. It did not sell a large number of copies, but the reason for that is that the time for tri-jets was already waning by the time the MD-11 came out, and the reason for tr-jets was pretty much going away. So I am not sure the issue was technical or passenger impression or anything like that, which was alleged for the "failure" of the DC-10. MD-11 was actually more of a creature of Mac-Dac's inability at that point to invest in a true next gen jumbo than anything else. It was sot of Mac-Dac's version of what Airbus originally tried to do in the way of the 350, before they redid the project after getting a swift kick or two from some of their larger customers.
> 
> 
> 
> Airlines will continue to buy and operate this efficient plane, but these media report will like undermine ridership, even though most people have no idea what type of plane they are flying on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My bet is unless one crashes and burns there will be zero effect on anything from media reports. Afterall it is not only the experts who laugh at some of the silly things that appear in the media these days. And non-experts do not bother to read anything that takes more than three cells of the brain to comprehend.  So no. There will be zero effect.
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand the 747 developmental problems, considering how large the aircraft was compared to anything previously built. I know the 787 is supposed to have revolutionary features, but the 747 only took four years from launch to introduction compared to eight years for the 787.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In some sense the 787s development problems had three components
> (a) Technical: Using complete fuselage barrels that are fabricated as a single unit. This is a first for such a large fuselage, and the technology for it had to be developed. In addition designing a totally "electric" plane with no use of bleed air for pressurization etc. The roots of the battery problems lie in this latter technical innovation.
> 
> (b) Organization: Extensive outsourcing and management of supply chains that come with it.
> 
> © Managerial: Chaos in Boeing executive suite specially in the early phases.
> 
> All three conspired to create quite a mess for a while and hence the extraordinary amount of time that it took to get things to settle down.
> 
> My idle hypothesis also is that Boeing was struggling for its existence when it was developing the 747, having way overcommitted themselves based on a promise of orders from Juan Tripp. So they were much more focused on building the thing, and were not involved in interesting latter day organizational experiments. Which made the progress of that particular project the centerpiece of their existence.
> 
> In contrast, the 787 was yet another project, albeit large. They felt comfortable enough to experiment with revolutionary logistical changes some of which worked and some did not. And at no time were they under any threat of going bankrupt. This caused them to be less focused and all over the place. The results are self-evident.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your time. This does make sense, but I don't understand what caused the managerial chaos. Those technical problems remind me of Greyhound ordering the G4500, they used too much new technology, materials, and construction techniques. This resulted in the biggest fleet failure in Greyhound history.



jis said:


> Currently the center of attention of the investigation is reportedly the ELT (Emergency Location Transmitter) battery, which Lithium-Magnesium. The ELT is manufactured by Honywell and is used in many other aircrafts also.


So, it's another battery problem. Not the same battery I assume, but Boeing's gonna have to churn out some good answers for this. Boeing is at risk of losing their position as the dominant worldwide widebody manufacturer. Now I'll be waiting to see how the A350 fares.


----------



## jis

The ELT battery is a sealed battery that comes with the ELT, (which is located in the vicinity of where the charring was found) and is not ever charged from the aircraft. It is a long life battery that is independent of any aircraft system. It is used only after the aircraft crashes to power the Location Transmitter for an extended period of time, so that it can continue transmitting the radio signal until the wreckage is found hopefully.

If this turns out to be the case (and still a big if on that one) then this one is not going to be Boeing's problem alone per se. If this proves to be the cause there could potentially be lot of ADs against many aircraft models, both Boeing and Airbus that use the same or similar ELT from Honeywell, depending on whether it was a problem with a single batch or was more pervasive. This would be similar to the issue with Thales Pitot Tubes on AF447, which caused a blanket replacement requirement for all such Pitot Tubes on all makes of aircraft that used them. But we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Let us wait for there to be some conclusive results.

BTW, the chaos in the Boeing executive suite was because of serious governance problems (plus a philandering CEO) that caused Lew Platt to take over as Chairman and then to kick the CEO out the door, among other things. There was some serious executive house cleaning and shuffling at Boeing back then, which inevitably affects management of large projects.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

jis said:


> The ELT battery is a sealed battery that comes with the ELT, (which is located in the vicinity of where the charring was found) and is not ever charged from the aircraft. It is a long life battery that is independent of any aircraft system. It is used only after the aircraft crashes to power the Location Transmitter for an extended period of time, so that it can continue transmitting the radio signal until the wreckage is found hopefully.
> If this turns out to be the case (and still a big if on that one) then this one is not going to be Boeing's problem alone per se. If this proves to be the cause there could potentially be lot of ADs against many aircraft models, both Boeing and Airbus that use the same or similar ELT from Honeywell, depending on whether it was a problem with a single batch or was more pervasive. This would be similar to the issue with Thales Pitot Tubes on AF447, which caused a blanket replacement requirement for all such Pitot Tubes on all makes of aircraft that used them. But we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Let us wait for there to be some conclusive results.
> 
> BTW, the chaos in the Boeing executive suite was because of serious governance problems (plus a philandering CEO) that caused Lew Platt to take over as Chairman and then to kick the CEO out the door, among other things. There was some serious executive house cleaning and shuffling at Boeing back then, which inevitably affects management of large projects.


I'll just be patient for the answers. Boeing really got mssed up with all that CEO madness and other messing around. I hope they get sorted out soon.

Thanks, Jishnu.


----------



## railiner

More woes.......http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-dreamliner-unscheduled-landing-boston-20130718,0,6989136.story


----------



## FlightFan

railiner said:


> More woes.......http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-dreamliner-unscheduled-landing-boston-20130718,0,6989136.story


Guess what... planes across the world return back to airports when some minor abnormality is spotted, just because it is a 787 so makes it to news. Same day, same airport, today itself IcelandAir 757 also returned back to Boston due to a minor warning, did it make it to the news?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Ah, it was just an indicator. As the article states, no real emergency. But I know that small problems which aren't fixed correctly could cause a major accident.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

FlightFan said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> More woes.......http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-dreamliner-unscheduled-landing-boston-20130718,0,6989136.story
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what... planes across the world return back to airports when some minor abnormality is spotted, just because it is a 787 so makes it to news. Same day, same airport, today itself IcelandAir 757 also returned back to Boston due to a minor warning, did it make it to the news?
Click to expand...

The 757 has a much longer track record to help put new concerns into proper perspective. The 777 crash landing at SFO was a fatal event and yet I'm far less concerned about it because the 777 has already proven itself to be safe and reliable over millions of miles of uneventful flying. The 747 has had some of the worst accidents in aviation history, but even those terrible events are balanced out by decades of continuous service for legions of airlines all over the world. Unlike the 747, 757, or 777 the 787 hasn't proven itself as of yet. Maybe it will and maybe it won't. From what I've read one thing that has changed since Boeing's previous designs is a move by cash starved regulators toward more self-certification of safety regulations. In the IT world it is generally understood that even the best designer is unlikely to be an effective tester and reviewer of their own work. You need someone who can review the work objectively and who doesn't feel pressure to ignore or look past potential mistakes. Prior to the 787 this was an acknowledged phenomenon in commercial aviation as well, but that doesn't appear to be the case anymore. There will always be those who claim that any bad press is just the media's fascination with sensationalism, but as the list of incidents grows it gets harder and harder to ignore.


----------



## railiner

Agree with DA....unfortunately for Boeing, the 787 is under intense scrutiny right now, and the press seems to love "piling-on"........


----------



## leemell

Preliminary reports from the Brits investigative agency has centered the fire on the ELT. They don't know if the ELT started it or a very nearby short yet.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Devil's Advocate said:


> FlightFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> More woes.......http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-dreamliner-unscheduled-landing-boston-20130718,0,6989136.story
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what... planes across the world return back to airports when some minor abnormality is spotted, just because it is a 787 so makes it to news. Same day, same airport, today itself IcelandAir 757 also returned back to Boston due to a minor warning, did it make it to the news?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 757 has a much longer track record to help put new concerns into proper perspective. The 777 crash landing at SFO was a fatal event and yet I'm far less concerned about it because the 777 has already proven itself to be safe and reliable over millions of miles of uneventful flying. The 747 has had some of the worst accidents in aviation history, but even those terrible events are balanced out by decades of continuous service for legions of airlines all over the world. Unlike the 747, 757, or 777 the 787 hasn't proven itself as of yet. Maybe it will and maybe it won't. From what I've read one thing that has changed since Boeing's previous designs is a move by cash starved regulators toward more self-certification of safety regulations. In the IT world it is generally understood that even the best designer is unlikely to be an effective tester and reviewer of their own work. You need someone who can review the work objectively and who doesn't feel pressure to ignore or look past potential mistakes. Prior to the 787 this was an acknowledged phenomenon in commercial aviation as well, but that doesn't appear to be the case anymore. There will always be those who claim that any bad press is just the media's fascination with sensationalism, but as the list of incidents grows it gets harder and harder to ignore.
Click to expand...

Even though the 747 has had very bad accidents, most were not caused by the plane malfunctioning. The Terenife accident was pilot error, JAL 123 was pilot error combined with faulty maintainence, SA 163 was more pilot error, and a bunch of mid-air explosions were caused by terrorism.

TWA 800 was apparently caused by electrical problems, though no one is sure exaclty what caused the explosion.

Just some info.


----------



## jis

The possibility of a manufacturing defect of that specific ELT unit causing an internal short, is now being considered too...

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_21_2013_p0-599038.xml


----------



## jis

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Even though the 747 has had very bad accidents, most were not caused by the plane malfunctioning. The Terenife accident was pilot error, JAL 123 was pilot error combined with faulty maintainence, SA 163 was more pilot error, and a bunch of mid-air explosions were caused by terrorism.


747s also had some really close calls. The most (in)famous one was when a Pan Am 747 took off with half the approach lights gantries of SFO inserted into its belly due to a mistaken runway length assumption. It managed to come back and make a landing with everyone intact. The plane not so much.

Someone on airliners.net pointed out that now that there are over 50 787s flying, by this stage the first A320 hull loss and fatality had already taken place. But as usual, that is neither here nor there, as one of my previous bosses used to say.

What is curious is that dispatch reliability is all over the place depending on airline. Notwithstanding all of the bellyaching in the press, ANA and JAL have excellent dispatch reliability whereas United has been relatively unimpressive, though of late improving considerably.


----------



## CHamilton

Lithium batteries: ‘It’s more than a 787 issue’


> WASHINGTON -- If the lithium battery-fed fire that scorched a parked and empty Boeing Dreamliner jet in London had occurred over the ocean, hours from an airport, the result could have been catastrophic.
> 
> The July 12 blaze on the Ethiopian Airlines 787 was in a difficult-to-reach space and couldn't be put out by the plane's fire extinguishers,according to British regulators. Only one-third of airliners with such hidden fires can be expected to land safely, an earlier British study concluded.
> 
> Lithium cells are lighter, more powerful and longer-lived than other batteries. They power devices from the iPhone to the Boeing 787 and some of its components, including the Honeywell International emergency locator transmitter linked to the London fire.
> 
> They can in rare instances overheat in uncontrollable chemical reactions, creating the risk of disastrous fires, as their use proliferates in passengers' personal electronics and aircraft systems, said John Cox, a Washington-based aviation safety consultant who co-wrote a 2013 British Royal Aeronautical Society report on aircraft fires.


----------



## jis

Interesting article in _Aviation Week_ on CFRP laminate repair, and how well CFRP behaves under fire when compared to aircraft thickness Aluminum.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_22_2013_p22-598174.xml&p=1


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

jis said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the 747 has had very bad accidents, most were not caused by the plane malfunctioning. The Terenife accident was pilot error, JAL 123 was pilot error combined with faulty maintainence, SA 163 was more pilot error, and a bunch of mid-air explosions were caused by terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> 747s also had some really close calls. The most (in)famous one was when a Pan Am 747 took off with half the approach lights gantries of SFO inserted into its belly due to a mistaken runway length assumption. It managed to come back and make a landing with everyone intact. The plane not so much.
> 
> Someone on airliners.net pointed out that now that there are over 50 787s flying, by this stage the first A320 hull loss and fatality had already taken place. But as usual, that is neither here nor there, as one of my previous bosses used to say.
> 
> What is curious is that dispatch reliability is all over the place depending on airline. Notwithstanding all of the bellyaching in the press, ANA and JAL have excellent dispatch reliability whereas United has been relatively unimpressive, though of late improving considerably.
Click to expand...

You are on a.net? What's your username, haven't seen a Jis or Jishnu while lurking on their forums. I'm not on a.net because I don't want to pay their membership fee.

United reliability seems OK on international flights, the 747s flying out of SFO seem to have good OTP or at least make up delays in flight. Maybe domectic is the problems?


----------



## jis

Swadian Hardcore said:


> You are on a.net? What's your username, haven't seen a Jis or Jishnu while lurking on their forums. I'm not on a.net because I don't want to pay their membership fee.


COEWR787

They would not let me use a three character handle. 



> United reliability seems OK on international flights, the 747s flying out of SFO seem to have good OTP or at least make up delays in flight. Maybe domectic is the problems?


I was talking of their 787 dispatch reliability. 747 dispatch reliability was getting so bad BTW that they basically shut down all 747 service and moved them over to 777s, except from home base SFO, and that fixed the problem for now. But the 747s are going to stick around only until the Airbus 350-1000s and 787-10s start appearing, which gives them still a few more years.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

jis said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are on a.net? What's your username, haven't seen a Jis or Jishnu while lurking on their forums. I'm not on a.net because I don't want to pay their membership fee.
> 
> 
> 
> COEWR787
> 
> They would not let me use a three character handle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United reliability seems OK on international flights, the 747s flying out of SFO seem to have good OTP or at least make up delays in flight. Maybe domestic is the problems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was talking of their 787 dispatch reliability. 747 dispatch reliability was getting so bad BTW that they basically shut down all 747 service and moved them over to 777s, except from home base SFO, and that fixed the problem for now. But the 747s are going to stick around only until the Airbus 350-1000s and 787-10s start appearing, which gives them still a few more years.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'll see if I can find you on some a.net posts! But I won't be paying that membership fee just to chat about some planes. It's only $25 one-time for a regular membership but I still don't like to waste money, reflected in me trying to find cheap Greyhound fares.


----------



## railiner

Swadian, as much as you seem to love Greyhound, why don't you go to work for them? Then you could ride free......


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

railiner said:


> Swadian, as much as you seem to love Greyhound, why don't you go to work for them? Then you could ride free......


Naw, I just use them for transport a lot. I'm not a bus driver, and I'm not restricted to taking them every time. As I do fly and take the train sometimes.


----------



## jis

Meanwhile delivery of 787s continue unabated.... In the last two weeks a total of 6 were delivered. one each to JAL, Ethiopian, United and LOT and two to Qatar.

In addition 6 had their first flights one each for China Southern, Norwegian, TUI and LAN, and two for JAL.

And 3 new ones rolled out of the factory, one each for United, Aeromexico and Royal Brunei.


----------



## Texan Eagle

jis said:


> Meanwhile delivery of 787s continue unabated.... In the last two weeks a total of 6 were delivered. one each to JAL, Ethiopian, United and LOT and two to Qatar.
> In addition 6 had their first flights one each for China Southern, Norwegian, TUI and LAN, and two for JAL.
> 
> And 3 new ones rolled out of the factory, one each for United, Aeromexico and Royal Brunei.


What happened to the British Airways 787? I saw photos of it being rolled out (the first one to have colored engine nacelles, all other airlines opted for Boeing's recommended white or gray) but then never heard about it.


----------



## jis

It was delivered about three or four weeks back in late June

http://www.jaunted.com/story/2013/7/7/142224/5782/travel/Brand+New+British+Airways%3A+A+Bonus+Peek+Inside+Their+Boeing+787+Dreamliner

Here's a very nice photo....


----------



## jis

More on the investigation of the Ethiopian 787 event from _The Seattle Times_:

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2021456975_787firesourcexml.html


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

What are the 787 routes from the US right now?


----------



## Texan Eagle

Swadian Hardcore said:


> What are the 787 routes from the US right now?


From top of my head,

*All Nippon*

San Jose - Tokyo

*Japan Airlines*

Boston - Tokyo

San Francisco - Tokyo (starts Sept 1)

San Diego - Tokyo

*Ethiopian*

Washington - Addis Ababa

*United*

Denver - Tokyo

Houston - Los Angeles

Houston - Denver

Houston - London

*LOT Polish*

Chicago - Warsaw

I am sure jis knows complete list.

You can see all 787 flights currently in the air worldwide here- http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/B788


----------



## jis

Current and planned United 787 routes:



> UNITEDFollowing is Current Boeing 787 Routes:
> 
> Houston – Chicago eff 20MAY13 1 daily (3 daily from 21MAY13, 4 daily from 22MAY13 to 09JUN13 only)
> 
> Houston – Denver eff 21MAY13 1 daily (2 daily from 22MAY13, 3 daily from 24MAY13, 4 daily from 25MAY13. Overall service to operate 1 daily only from 10JUN13)
> 
> Houston – Los Angeles eff 24MAY13 2 daily (3 daily from 25MAY13 to 09JUN13)
> 
> Houston – London Heathrow 10JUN13 – 11AUG13 1 daily (5 weekly from 02AUG13 to 11AUG13)
> 
> Denver – Tokyo Narita eff 10JUN13 1 daily (11JUN13 from NRT)
> 
> Future Boeing 787 Routes:
> 
> Houston – Lagos eff 12AUG13 5 weekly (13AUG13 from LOS)
> 
> Los Angeles – Tokyo Narita eff 01AUG13 1 daily (02AUG13 from NRT)
> 
> Los Angeles – Shanghai Pu Dong eff 02AUG13 1 daily (03AUG13 from PVG)
> 
> Seattle – Tokyo Narita eff 05NOV13 1 daily (06NOV13 from NRT)


787 international routes from US (current and planned for balance of 2013 with effective dates):



> AeroMexico
> Mexico City – New York JFK eff 02OCT13 AM402/403 Daily service
> 
> ANA
> 
> Tokyo Narita – San Jose CA eff 10JUL13 Increase from 5 weekly to 1 daily (Resumed on 01JUN13 with 5 weekly)
> 
> Tokyo Narita – Seattle eff 01SEP13 5 of 7 weekly (Day x67, tentatively scheduled; Daily 787 service from 20SEP13)
> 
> British Airways
> 
> London Heathrow – Newark eff 01OCT13 1 daily (13 weekly from 27OCT13)
> 
> JAL
> 
> Tokyo Narita – Boston 1 daily
> 
> LOT
> 
> Warsaw – Chicago eff 05JUN13 11 weekly
> 
> Warsaw – New York JFK eff 30JUN13 2 weekly (4 weekly from 01AUG13; 11 weekly from 09AUG13)
> 
> Norwegian
> 
> Stockholm – New York JFK eff 16AUG13 3 weekly (Instead of 02SEP13)
> 
> Oslo – New York JFK eff 01SEP13 3 weekly (4 weekly from 29NOV13)
> 
> Copenhagen – Ft. Lauderdale eff 29NOV13 2 weekly
> 
> Oslo – Ft. Lauderdale eff 30NOV13 2 weekly
> 
> Stockholm – Ft. Lauderdale eff 01DEC13 2 weekly
> 
> UNITED
> 
> Houston – London Heathrow 10JUN13 – 11AUG13 1 daily (5 weekly from 02AUG13 to 11AUG13)
> 
> Denver – Tokyo Narita eff 10JUN13 1 daily (11JUN13 from NRT)
> 
> Houston – Lagos eff 12AUG13 5 weekly (13AUG13 from LOS)
> 
> Los Angeles – Tokyo Narita eff 01AUG13 1 daily (02AUG13 from NRT)
> 
> Los Angeles – Shanghai Pu Dong eff 02AUG13 1 daily (03AUG13 from PVG)
> 
> Seattle – Tokyo Narita eff 05NOV13 1 daily (06NOV13 from NRT)


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Much appreciated for the infomation. Man, you guys always seem to pull infromation out of your sleep! I'm sorry if I take up too much of your time with these questions and discussions.

I do not see why there's so many reletively minor destinations served by the 787, like San Jose, San Diego, Fort Lauderdale, and the planned Lagos.


----------



## railiner

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Much appreciated for the infomation. Man, you guys always seem to pull infromation out of your sleep! I'm sorry if I take up too much of your time with these questions and discussions.
> I do not see why there's so many reletively minor destinations served by the 787, like San Jose, San Diego, Fort Lauderdale, and the planned Lagos.


That's the mission and the beauty of airplanes like the 787. They can make a marginal direct route between a couple of smaller markets, or a large and a small market, profitable, where an A-380 or some other very large airliner could never hope to.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

railiner said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much appreciated for the infomation. Man, you guys always seem to pull infromation out of your sleep! I'm sorry if I take up too much of your time with these questions and discussions.
> I do not see why there's so many reletively minor destinations served by the 787, like San Jose, San Diego, Fort Lauderdale, and the planned Lagos.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the mission and the beauty of airplanes like the 787. They can make a marginal direct route between a couple of smaller markets, or a large and a small market, profitable, where an A-380 or some other very large airliner could never hope to.
Click to expand...

That sounds like the replacement for the 757 and 767 flying long-distances, except that the 787 is a bigger plane. I'm not gonna lie, I'm just not impressed with the 787's 3-3-3 config in Economy. That would ever be as nice as the 2-3-2 config in the 767 it's supposed to replace.


----------



## jis

Since you do not get the necessary savings in CASM unless you use 3-3-3 in economy, you can rest assured that if they had decided to sell it as a 2-3-2 economy there would have been no 787 since there would be no business case for it. Indeed no one has yet ordered it with 7 abreast in economy. There is an option to order it with 8 abreast in economy, but most airlines have so far selected 9 abreast.

Reduction in CASM will always trump selection of unusually wide economy seats.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

jis said:


> Since you do not get the necessary savings in CASM unless you use 3-3-3 in economy, you can rest assured that if they had decided to sell it as a 2-3-2 economy there would have been no 787 since there would be no business case for it. Indeed no one has yet ordered it with 7 abreast in economy. There is an option to order it with 8 abreast in economy, but most airlines have so far selected 9 abreast.
> Reduction in CASM will always trump selection of unusually wide economy seats.


I know what you mean, but I'm just saying that the 767 has a narrower cabin, which allows 2-3-2 seating without very wide seats. That's why I don't understand how the 787 can directly replace the 767 or even smaller ETOPS 757s flying across the Atlantic.


----------



## Texan Eagle

Swadian Hardcore said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you do not get the necessary savings in CASM unless you use 3-3-3 in economy, you can rest assured that if they had decided to sell it as a 2-3-2 economy there would have been no 787 since there would be no business case for it. Indeed no one has yet ordered it with 7 abreast in economy. There is an option to order it with 8 abreast in economy, but most airlines have so far selected 9 abreast.
> Reduction in CASM will always trump selection of unusually wide economy seats.
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you mean, but I'm just saying that the 767 has a narrower cabin, which allows 2-3-2 seating without very wide seats. That's why I don't understand how the 787 can directly replace the 767 or even smaller ETOPS 757s flying across the Atlantic.
Click to expand...

787 is not build to directly replace 767. It is built for a specific purpose- to serve secondary routes that are too long for 767 and too small to fill up a giant 777 or 747. Moderate 2nd tier cities across the world is a huge untapped market to offer non-stop connections to places never thought of before.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Texan Eagle said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you do not get the necessary savings in CASM unless you use 3-3-3 in economy, you can rest assured that if they had decided to sell it as a 2-3-2 economy there would have been no 787 since there would be no business case for it. Indeed no one has yet ordered it with 7 abreast in economy. There is an option to order it with 8 abreast in economy, but most airlines have so far selected 9 abreast.
> Reduction in CASM will always trump selection of unusually wide economy seats.
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you mean, but I'm just saying that the 767 has a narrower cabin, which allows 2-3-2 seating without very wide seats. That's why I don't understand how the 787 can directly replace the 767 or even smaller ETOPS 757s flying across the Atlantic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 787 is not build to directly replace 767. It is built for a specific purpose- to serve secondary routes that are too long for 767 and too small to fill up a giant 777 or 747. Moderate 2nd tier cities across the world is a huge untapped market to offer non-stop connections to places never thought of before.
Click to expand...

That would be really great for intercontinenetal routes out of those smaller airports like DEN, SEA, PHX, PHL, CLE, BOS, and loads of other ones in the Us and abroad! I really do like the mssion of the 787, while seems different from the larger A350. AFAIK, the A350 is going to meet 777 size/capacity at lower fuel consuption.

So the porblem is, what's going to replace the huge number of ETOPS 757/767 flying long distances? The 787 is still too big, and the 737X/A320neo might challenge the 752, but they can't even think about replacing the 763 or 764. Maybe a smaller 787 or A350 would be the best option or a new 767X. The 767 is a proven, reliable, and versatile platform, so a redesigned wing, new engines, and modified fuselage should result in scores of orders.


----------



## CHamilton

Wing cracks lead to Dreamliner production delay



> NEW YORK (AP) — Boeing's much-delayed 787 Dreamliner has hit another production snafu.
> Hairline cracks have been discovered in the wings of some 787s that are being built. The Chicago-based manufacturer said none of the 122 jets already flown by airlines around the world are affected....
> Boeing said that roughly 40 airplanes might be affected and that it will take one to two weeks to inspect each plane and fix any cracks found on shear ties on a wing rib. A shear tie is an attachment fitting. It is part of the rib — and connects the rib to the wing skin. The company would not give an overall timeframe to inspect all of the wings.
> The wings are produced by Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and then flown to the U.S. to be assembled with other parts of the plane. Inspections are taking place at Boeing's plants in Everett, Wash., and Charleston, S.C., and at the Mitsubishi's plant.
> While there might be short-term delivery delays, Alder said Boeing doesn't expect this problem to impact its total year deliveries: 110 new Dreamliners in 2014.


----------



## jis

Seems like a relatively minor thing, though better caught during manufacturing than later.


----------



## railiner

Heard on the TV news that the FAA has found the Boeing 787 Dreamliner to have "A Clean Bill of Health"....

See also....http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/20/boeing-787-meets-safety-levels-report

So apparently the issues have been resolved, and Boeing will ramp up production with a goal of 3,000 units....


----------



## CHamilton

Problems still plague 787; Boeing slows assembly in Everett



> EVERETT — Untimely work and substandard supplier components continue to be a drag on Boeing's 787 Dreamliner program, say factory workers and others familiar with the production process.
> 
> The problems prompted the aerospace giant last month to slow the two 787 assembly lines at Paine Field. From mid-August until early September, no new airplanes rolled out of the factory. Meanwhile, an unusual number of 787s were parked on the Boeing flight line and in other areas of the airport.
> 
> The slowdown was part of a production-rate plan drafted two years ago, and that production is getting smoother, said Debbie Heathers, a spokeswoman for the Dreamliner program.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Why would you assemble something in Paine Field? I wouldn't. It's like I wanted to set up in Michigan so I picked hell. Made in Hell.


----------



## CHamilton

> The airport was renamed Paine Field, in honor of a World War I Air Corps pilot and Air Mail Service flyer from Everett, Washington, Topliff Olin Paine (1893-1922). http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=8266


At least they didn't name it for one of Car Talk's staffers, Major Paine-Diaz.


----------



## CHamilton

Too cold to fly: Japanese investigators link Dreamliner battery failure to weather



> Japanese authorities released a report today speculating why the lithium-ion battery in a Boeing 787 Dreamliner melted last year, causing the fleet to be grounded for months while the problem was resolved....
> 
> The Japanese report speculates that internal heating and increased pressure in the battery caused it to expand and melt surrounding insulation materials, something Boeing and other investigative groups have also found.
> 
> But the Japanese authorities also suggested, “low temperature during overnight stay possibly contributed to the internal short circuit.”
> 
> Low temperatures can cause the primary metal in the battery, lithium, to decompose, according to the report. All three incidents with the Dreamliner batteries last year took place immediately after the batteries were exposed to cold. Japanese authorities recommended Boeing review how external conditions such as cold nights affect the batteries.


----------



## CHamilton

Federal probe points to battery defect in Boeing 787 fire




> WASHINGTON (AP) - A short circuit likely due to a manufacturing defect in a Boeing 787 airliner battery caused a fire last year that grounded the planes for more than three months, federal accident investigators said Monday. They also faulted the plane's maker and the Federal Aviation Administration for designing and approving a battery design that didn't protect against such a failure.
> An inspection of the GS Yuasa manufacturing plant in Japan where the battery was made found that flaws and debris in lithium-ion aircraft batteries were going undetected, according to the National Transportation Safety Board report. Investigators were able to rule out other possible causes of the short circuit such as overcharging, external heat, or improper installation, the report said.
> 
> Boeing failed to anticipate, when testing the battery's design, that a short circuit in one of the its eight cells might lead to uncontrolled overheating known as thermal runaway, which would spread to the other cells and cause them to vent smoke-like vapors and catch fire, the report said. The Federal Aviation Administration was faulted for not catching the design deficiency when it approved the plane for flight.


----------



## jis

So now we can put this puppy to rest presumably, since all this led to a battery container design that lets the battery burn itself out merrily without damaging anything else.


----------



## caravanman

If the battery can "burn itself out" without causing any problems... why bother to install the battery in the plane at all?

Ed


----------



## jis

caravanman said:


> If the battery can "burn itself out" without causing any problems... why bother to install the battery in the plane at all?
> 
> Ed


This has a good explanation of what the main battery is used for: http://787updates.newairplane.com/787-Electrical-Systems/Batteries-and-Advanced-Airplanes
In normal operation with engines turning the batteries are not used for much. They are used on the ground when the engines are off, and the aircraft is neither connected to shore power nor is the APU on, and also in case of loss of engine power in the air, in that very unlikely event. Naturally in the normal course of operation the batteries are not supposed to burn. But should they burn in an unlikely event, it is important to keep such from compromising the rest of the aircraft. And that is what was achieved in the redesign of the battery container.


----------



## CHamilton

How did they make their determination? Did they run a test battery of battery tests?


----------



## jis

They ran battery of battery tests on test batteries? 

Well actually the thing being tested was the stainless steel container more than the burning battery I suppose. We already knew that the batteries catch fire an burn. The questions was will the battery container contain said fire adequately? The previous ones did not, the new ones did and successfully vented all the foul gases to the outside.


----------

