I'm wondering why this battery problem and the other glitches didn't show up in the thousands of hours of testing the airplane !
I don't disagree to some extent, but in the case of Payne Stewart, it was most likely crew error. Unfortunately. I know that accident well, as I was flying and teaching Learjets at that time.
Well, it's not just an incident, but has resulted in ANA and JAL grounding their entire fleet of 787s. That's over 20 aircraft. And this is a self-grounding, not even regulatory (which would likely affect the 50 that are currently flying worldwide). Bob, we all know every plane including the 777 has teething and EITS issues, but the 787 is really starting to look like a basket case at least in terms of build quality. The internet wasn't as widespread with information as it is now, but I just can't see the 777 having gone through this many issues, this quickly, and with quite a few pointing to more serious underlying issues. But I do agree, the 777 is by far one of the greatest commercial aircraft ever produced. And the sales show that.
The 777 didn't go through tis type of issue or any others. I agree, the 777 is the best that has ever been produced and the nickname that it has been given by flight crews verify that, " The WGA." The World's Greatest Airplane.
Flew into IAH tonight, taxied past United's 787 sitting half way in the hangar. Wonder if it is currently flying?
The FAA does not make decisions solely based on air safety, otherwise the entire fleet would be grounded.
Maybe before we completely blame Boeing, somebody needs to ask who made those Lithium battery sets? If they are fundamentally flawed - this will be a major re-engineering issue to find a replacement that fits and works reliably.
I'm guessing that they didn't run the batteries during testing as long as they are being run in service, and the current problem didn't have time to surface. Boeing's testing is very thorough, but you can't always catch every scenario.
Reported as Yuasa, one of the long time Japanese battery producers but I suppose they could be made anywhere. Commercial standby/back up batteries were my Fathers business. It is a technology that has been pushed faster and farther for enviro/legislative reasons than caution and good judgement would sometimes dictate. They are an energy storage device, in some ways not unlike a can of gasoline. A client of mine is an EE and specializes as a retained expert in battery fire cases.
Lithium Ion as well. Same type of battery that spontaneously combusted to bring down the UPS 747 a couple yrs ago. I've had lithium powered devices have thermal events that leave a pile of melted plastic.
Lithium Ion, Yuasa... Like many American and German cars, could easily be made in Mexico. Shoot, the 787 is made all over the globe, Europe, Japan, India, Australia... some even in the US. Are they the same as the laptop batteries that were catching fire several years ago Think I read that a Prius battery caught fire also, but not sure. Seems like the battery fires are the most 'scary' problem for the public. Also probably the most serious. Fuel leaks happen, windshields crack, always have...
The fuel leak involved a dump valve, so this was not a maintenance issue where a monkey with a wrench improperly tightened a fitting. Could just be a faulty valve, or something else (wag of the day, a surge tank pressure relief issue which commands the valve to open)
GS Yuasa is the manufacture of the 787 battery in fact they hype the fact that they are making them. http://www.gsyuasa-lp.com/aviation-lithium-ion-markets And this little blurb from the press release about the battery's Thales is determined to create the safest, most advanced, efficient and reliable power system possible for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. We are partnering with GS Yuasa because we are delighted with their battery technology. Since it is maintenance-free and has longer service life comparing to current nickel-cadmium batteries, it makes for lower operating costs and increased safety for airline companies, http://www.s399157097.onlinehome.us/PDFS/BoeingPR_06_12_2005.pdf
Boeing IS responsible for ALL components on any of the planes they sell as fit for service. And if Gatorrari's theory that they did not test the batteries long enough then Boeing have really given up on safety. Something they would not have done in the past. Are we rushing the new planes in too fast due to competition pressures. With the 747 there was no competition and they tested the crap out of that design and it made Boeing (to mere passengers like me). Like many things, you are only as good as your last design ... this is hurting the public perception of Boeing so they better sort it fast. Pete ps: doesn't carbon fibre shatter on impact? What would happen if these new planes wings (which I assume are made out of cf) were impacted in flight by something, or even a service truck bumped into it before take off? ... the good thing about metal is that it retains some of its strength while bent ... thoughts?
Lots of composite primary structure flying prior to the 787. Entire 777 and most AB tails are composite. Boeing (and AB) have performed 10's of thousands of coupon, subcomponent, and full scale tests to determine damage tolerance and residual strength aspects of structure made from composite materials. Other than birdstrike hail is the most likely, and damaging, type of in-flight impact event. Hail damage, typically while on the ground, damages quite a few airplanes every year. In many instances a properly designed composite structure is less susceptible to hail damage than aluminum. Ground strike due to service vehicles is common and will render Leading and Trailing edge structure unairworthy regardless of composite or aluminum. Propagation of that damage into the main wing structure is very unlikely, unless it itself is directly impacted. Biggest problem with composites is damage is not always obvious because it does not dent like aluminum.
From a recent press report... One reason the Dreamliner is revolutionary is because it uses lithium-ion batteries to generate much of the electricity on the 787. This allows the planes to be more fuel efficient since electric powered systems have replaced some of the mechanical powered systems. As promising as the conversion to lithium-ion batteries is for increasing efficiency, it is also a controversial change. Lithium-ion batteries on airplanes have long been a concern for the FAA because they can be volatile. In 2007, the FAA outlined its concern about lithium-ion batteries on airplanes writing, "In general, lithium-ion batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure. ... The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion." Boeing says the batteries used in the Dreamliner are safe. Dreamliner chief engineer, Mike Sinnett, says Boeing has logged more than one million hours of flight time with lithium-ion batteries and stands by their reliability. When asked by reporters if he thinks the Dreamliner is safe, Sinnett said, "I am 100 percent convinced the airplane is safe to fly. I fly on it myself all the time." Searching for a Common Problem With two incidents involving the lithium-ion batteries on Dreamliners, investigators are now looking for what those batteries have in common. Are they part of a batch of batteries built at the same time where something was overlooked? Was the wiring part of the problem? There are scores of questions and a host of data Boeing, the FAA and the NTSB will review. One thing that will help investigators is the fact the Dreamliner is perhaps the most "wired" plane ever built, feeding back data to Boeing and the airlines flying the planes. That data could help investigators pin point what exactly went wrong and did the Dreamliner handle the malfunction as designed. Meanwhile, Boeing continues building the Dreamliner in Everett, Washington and Charleston, South Carolina. The current pace of production is five Dreamliners per month. By the end of the year, Boeing is planning to build ten per month. "It could be we see more groundings, that is quite possible." says Richard Aboulafia, an aviation consultant with the Teal Group. "But none of this points to an aircraft that is fundamentally flawed."
FAA just grounded all N-registered airplanes, which all foreign regulatory agencies will likely follow.
That is not good news for BOEING. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57564384/faa-grounds-787-dreamliners/
Definitely not. I wonder what Boeing will say/do in response and whether this will impact any of their existing, yet-to-be-fulfilled, orders for Dreamliners. All the best, Andrew.
