Boeing 787 fleet grounded indefinitely as investigators stumped
Boeing's flagship fleet of 787 Dreamliner aircraft will be grounded for the foreseeable future after a preliminary report from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said the cause of two battery fires had yet to be found, and that Japanese investigators are similarly baffled. "We have not ruled anything out as a …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: Good news
So the product can be crap, maybe even dangerous, but as long as a bunch of technically unqualified clerks can verify that the paperwork has all been competed correctly, it gets to fly?
Marvellous.
There's a sort of balance here. I seem to remember Boeing were being total cnuts when Airbus were having problems with their first fly-by-wire plane.
Airbus introduced side sticks whereas Boeing continued to have a yoke.
The Americans prefer something big between their legs......
"I seem to remember Boeing were being total cnuts when Airbus were having problems with their first fly-by-wire plane."
From what I hear things are different in the aero engine business. Apparently there's a tradition of the major players helping each other out when big, disastrous, and difficult to solve problems occur. Sort of along the lines of it being better for all concerned that all aero engines are seen as reliable. Ya-booing the competition just because their engine shafts keep cracking and letting all the hot bits fly out the back isn't going to fill the public with confidence in the industry as a whole.
Airbus are probably being carefully tight-lipped on Boeing's battery problem. They're planning on using Li-ion batteries too, I think...
Boeing have certainly gone very quite on all the statements they made about carbon fiber planes when an American Airlines pilot tried to do a handbrake turn in an Airbus A300 and broke the tail off.
Ironically this is also the only Airbus model that has direct Boeing-style controls that allowed the pilot to break it - rather than a computer that would have stopped him
Well I will add a caveat to your comment. Commercial airliners are mostly yoke though the C-17 made by Boeing is a stick but yes its still between their legs.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3401/4620528541_5c5bc1c391_z.jpg
"The Americans prefer something big between their legs......"
If AF447 had been a Boeing, it might have survived for that reason. Instead the co-pilot crashed it by keeping the plane's nose up using his little widger, which probably wasn't evident to the captain....
and the lack of coupling between the side sticks was responsible in part for the Airbus crash in the Atlantic.
The captain was unaware of what the co pilot was actually doing..
Airbus side-sticks
You're both wrong I'm afraid.
The pilot can very well see the deflections and movements of the side-stick on one of the panels (the F/CTL page of the EFIS see also: http://a340gc.iradis.org/gallery/fctl_large.gif )
And don't forget that the pilots have a priority button and can wrest control from their opposite number at any time they wish.
To see a similar occasion when a stick was improperly configured and how a quick witted first officer took over and saved the day. (Google Lufthansa's "Papa-Whiskey" A320-200 incident report)
Li-Ion is the Compact Fluorescent of battery technologies
Until the boffins come up with something better, revert to NiMH and just suck it up regarding the weight penalty. It doesn't look like a very large assembly.
is it that simple?
My question would be is this the "only" LI-ION battery pack on board the plane, because if it isn't, then swapping out for another chemistry could be a lot more awkward.
To me it all seems very strange, because all this stuff gets tested and tested and tested. How come it didn't crop up in the tests?
Re: is it that simple?
Just like software, a lot of stuff doesn't go casters-up until it hits production, for whatever reason.
Re: is it that simple?
@jonnymotel,
"To me it all seems very strange, because all this stuff gets tested and tested and tested. How come it didn't crop up in the tests?"
It certainly does get tested time and again. So a follow on question is "is the test the right test?
The following is pure speculation on my part, but this sort of thing happens time and time again.
It's possible that neither Boeing nor their supplier really know what the battery's specification ought to be. They may have re-used the shock, vibe, heat and electrical spec for an older trusted battery type. However, it might be that that old battery design significantly outperformed that public declared spec, and by good fortune alone has survived the test of time. However, any new battery designed exactly to that spec with no margin beyond would not be fit for service in the same conditions.
It would be astonishing if this were actually the case. Boeing are pretty good and careful engineers, and I imagine that the conditions in the electronics bay are actually quite benign. The electrical spec is probably harsher than 'normal', but that would be very easy to measure and quantify.
However we are in a situation where apparently everyone is expressing bafflement as to why the 787 batteries are failing. It could be explained by the spec being wrong in the first place.
Re: revert to NiMH and just suck it up regarding the weight penalty
I don't think its going to be as simple as that. Caveat - I haven't studied this in detail, but Aeroplane design is rather complicated, and if you're going to rip out the batteries and put in something larger and heavier you're going to have to find somewhere to put something larger and heavier, and then redesign everything that connects to the batteries to cope with the new location, and then deal with all the weight distribution changes and and and... Its not as if you can just remove a couple of passenger seats at the end of the cabinand replace them with a battery compartment and run a couple of heavy duty leads from where the old location was...
Re: is it that simple?
I think that is what all the investigation is all about.
Re: revert to NiMH and just suck it up regarding the weight penalty
Remember, the *brakes* have to work if the engines are stopped, the APU won't come on and all you have left is a Ram Air Turbine that charges at a higher speed than you want to touch down at -- and batteries more depleted every second. If I have this right, that leaves Lithium.
But I could be wrong.
battery cooling
I saw a picture of a new battery system and my immediate reaction was the cells seems awful close. Then I came across an article that talked all about active cooling of this type of battery. From the photo I saw, I didn't see any active cooling.
Re: battery cooling
I cant speak to this particular battery but in many aircraft its just a small cooling duct that enters the back of the part from the air conditioning system. They are not always very big. That being said though AC doesnt generally run on the ground and it may just be a small ducted cooling fan which doesnt help a ton if the area is already 35C+
Re: battery cooling
I've been wondering about thermal management in that bay, is it pressurized, if not, how does thinner air affect the thermal management?
Re: battery cooling
Another thing to think about is the AC cooling is driven by the engines. When the battery is most needed, guess which component is most likely not running?
Re: battery cooling
" is it pressurized, "
Generally the whole of the inside of the fuselage is pressurised.
It's very difficult to make a tube where the bit the passengers are in is pressurised but a thin floor away is a cargo hold that isn't. The exception is some planes where you want to open the cargo bay doors in flight - for those special deliveries.
The airlines themselves don't seem to understand this and used to tell you not to put certain items in the checked baggage because they might be damaged by the lack of pressure.
The only difference is that the cargo hold isn't heated (except for the bits you put pets or sleeping crew in)
flame on
The root cause of this will be the same as most of the other giant cock ups that make the news world wide. Baby boomer management.
Re: flame on
More likely, as with most other giant project cock ups, to be down to older Gen X "managers".
These are the people with MBAs and a qualification in a soft subject, who took over the management of engineering and development from the older baby boomer and pre-war generation engineers and scientists.
Their main motivation tends to be short-term stock gains to obtain massive bonuses for themselves and their sociopathic C-level bosses at the expense of the longer-term future.
Re: flame on
Yeah, well, the reasoned response of any engineer to an MBA is 'shoot on sight'. MBA schools have been turning people out for years who seem to think that if something has a number associated with it, it is both understood and being managed by the said MBA.
Someone who gets an MBA after twenty years' experience in business probably has something to contribute. Someone who tags it on in an extra year straight after a Bachelor's? I'm not convinced. There's a difference between 'taught' education and practical experience.
Re: flame on
"There's a difference between 'taught' education and practical experience."
That should be "There's a difference between 'bought' education and practical experience."
There may be some good MBA's out there but the ones I've had experience of seemed to think they'd paid their ticket and they owned the right to manage.
It was the most profound advert for universal free education I've ever had.
Re: flame on....Baby boomer management.
With a slight correction:
Baby boomer manage damagement.
FTFY
if they go and use Lithium cobalt oxide batteries in aircraft, then its no surprise they catch fire.... normal Li-on are bad enough... a weight saving measure too far... accountants rule engineers again
i agree that its kids running things probably
"i agree that its kids running things probably"
You really think that all the good stuff in the 787 came from engineers,and all the bad stuff was foisted on them by accountants and kiddy MBA's? Couldn't possibly be that the experienced and highly qualified staff of Boeing know that they are in business to make money, and actually work together, take both engineering and commercial risks to get new stuff off the ground? And that the engineers know full well (without an accountant in their shirt pocket) that there isn't an unlimited budget or time?
Sometimes things work, sometimes they don't, and rarely is it because the pencils have been bent by the accountants. Airbus had a range of issues with the A380, and with the A400M - keep going back and you'll get to the Comet,and I'm sure there were plenty of other civil aviation engineering failures before that.
Baffled inspectors
I predict that once they pull ALL of the LiON batteries out of service (along with their histories stored in NVRAM), they'll figure it out pretty quickly. With two out of a hundred batteries having gone up in smoke already, I'll venture a guess that there are a few others out there with internal damage, but not to the point of runaway yet. And that damage will be easier to spot if its not in the middle of some melted goo.
The problem is: How to get the used batteries back to the NTSB lab. Show of hands for any cargo carriers willing to load one of these into their hold. Better to put them on a slow boat from China (Japan?).
Re: Baffled inspectors
In that case, why not test them in place?
Re: Baffled inspectors
If they are effectively isolated and haven't already exploded, there is small chance that they will.
What Boeing needs is a guy like Jobs
I remember, when videos of smoking iThingies were circulating, Jobs pronounced that his stuff wasn't burning or catching fire.
Boeing could do the same, then everything will be OK.
Colour me Airbus.
'Diversity' in the 787.
Boeing like any other corporation isn't adverse to outsourcing however the reason that the parts for the 787 are so widely sourced is that so many non-US companies and governments want skin in the aeronautics game and it would be safe to assume that those countries would be buying fewer 787s if their interests weren't gratified.
In this case, the battery is Japanese-made but subcontracted by the French firm Thales who's responsible for the broader electrical system. I believe the battery's electronic control logic is by a US firm Securaplane which is a subsidiary of the British engineering firm Meggitt.
The wide sourcing was a logistical nightmare and bore much of the responsibility for delays in the plane's delivery. Boeing eventually take some key parts of the work back in-house.
Re: 'Diversity' in the 787.
"The wide sourcing was a logistical nightmare and bore much of the responsibility for delays in the plane's delivery. Boeing eventually take some key parts of the work back in-house."
Publicly this is received wisdom, and focuses on the failures. But the A380 was similarly late and similarly over budget despite being relatively traditionally sourced. I would guess that there's plenty of things that have actually worked really well, and Boeing may have learnt lessons that will help it in future. I'd be very surprised if the lesson was "make everything, buy nothing", and would guess that the lesson is more about keeping on top of sub contractor performance, not subbing work that is too complex, and proper sharing of risk and return.
cosy cosy cosy
Batteries are GS Yuasa (Japan) integrated by Thales (France) supplying the power conditioning electronics.
Airbus is hoping it is the batteries that are the cause of 787 problems-- (Airbus is using [planning to use] Saft for the A350, Eads would never use Japanese batteries if there were a Euro supplier now would they? No more than Boeing would use a Euro battery supplier when most of Japan flies Boeing... scratchy scratchy). If it turns out to be partly the electronics, well, Thales of France supplies both Airbus and Boeing... although Airbus isn't flying yet with decent size LiIon so they might have dodged a bullet in this case. Otherwise those A350s would end up grounded too. Trailing the market has its advantages.
Re: cosy cosy cosy
If you look at the content of semi-equivalent modern Boeing/Airbus aircraft (which means the 787 and the A350), you'll find that there's no obvious nationalism going on, because the customer of those aircraft are the not at all nationalistic (should Airbus ignore their huge US order book? Should Boeing ignore their European customer base?)
There are some very strange things in the world of commercial aerospace: for example, I believe that the main gear for the US 787 is manufactured in France, while that of the Franco/German A350 is from the US... part of the issue is capacity: if company X got the business for one type, then company Y may be better placed for the next simply because of the workload. So if Boeing awarded the business to a French company, then Airbus may discover that the best supplier happens to be someone in Boeing's back yard...
Re: cosy cosy cosy
In aerospace what you are discussing is called offsetting. All major aircraft manufacturers do it, they have to in order to sell planes.
If the manufacturer won't let, say Japan, build a major component/system they will order their planes from the competitor. Offsets and country of origin financing are what really make big aircraft deals, not technology.
Re: cosy cosy cosy
There is no question of national interests interfering in a commercial Airline's business !
It just happens that no US airline, in receipt of lots of US government aid, chooses to fly Airbus.
And there was no link between BA choosing to buy some Airbusses and getting more landing slots in CDG.
The main reason for Airbus building the A380 is to stop airlines having to buy Boeing if they need a 400+ seat plane.
"...a custom design Boeing outsourced to Japanese manufacturer GS Yuasa..."
...whose executives are currently curled up in the fetal position behind their toilets, sweating bullets, murmuring, and rocking back and forth.
68 lbs of the new battery...
What is the weight of the older battery arrangement?
As for the savings Boeing is highlighting, is that over a flight or per aircraft lifetime?
Considering how much junk and extra luggage passengers can still get onboard, I wonder how much difference it is in using the new batteries.
Hmmm?
This is a worrying tale which pours fuel on the fire and would have one asking serious questions of Boeing and the FAA ...... http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020199686_787batterysafetyxml.html
Re: Hmmm?
Good link - horrifying but interesting. To summarise, Boeing expect a certain proportion of the LiON batteries to catch fire and got approval from the FAA for a system that lets the fire burn itself out and vents the smoke out of the aircraft. They hope that the heat will not damage adjacent subsystems. Most pilots think this is insane - I agree.
Phil.
Re: Hmmm?
It would be cool to have a "burning battery eject" mechanism on the plane. Shurely 50 years of nuke madness and trickery of unloading bomb bays have given us the required skills?
Re: Hmmm?
No doubt, but there is that small issue of a flaming battery pack being ejected somewhere inconvenient.
Like whilst parked on the tarmac or flying over populated areas.
it's not the loss of battery
it's the loss of power to whatever it feeds in an inflight emergency that would scare me. I cannot see any situation where a loss of one out of two batteries whilst on a long flight makes any sense in safety.
Can you imagine the pilot announcing "sorry about the smell, one of our two emergency batteries just caught fire and melted all over the electronics", on a flight crossing the Atlantic when they are halfway across.
Xantia's or XMs were a nightmare."
As a longtime and high mileage Xantia owner (4 to be precise); can I say they proved far more reliable than that paragon of German engineering & reliablity ; the VW Golf. My C5 and X-Picasso are similarly trouble free - I cannot believe that I have been SO lucky
Half of the resale price bit is due to Peugeot/Citroen discounting new prices so much.
Brits also never liked the hydropneumatic suspension (best bit ever and around since late '50s). Odd when it seems good enough for Rolls-Royce (most of which is Citroen parts..)
How long has the 787 been in service...?
"One of these events alone is serious; two of them in close proximity, especially in an airplane model with only about 100,000 flight hours, underscores the importance of getting to the root cause of these incidents."
So, 100,000 'flight hours' - I'm no expert so pardon my ignorance, but I will assume these hours mean time in the air. 100,000 flight hours would equate to almost 11 and a half YEARS in the air...
According to Wikipedia, the 787 was first unveiled on July the 8th, 2007.
No wonder the batteries got hot an exploded, perhaps the flux capacitor was drawing too much current, with the time travel and whatnot....?!
Re: How long has the 787 been in service...?
Eleven and a half years for one aircraft - maybe there's more than one?
Phil.
"In order to supply enough power, the aircraft depends on its battery packs"
So the Boeing 787 flies on batteries then ?
Somehow I don't find that very reassuring.
Re: "In order to supply enough power, the aircraft depends on its battery packs"
Especially if the bit of red ribbon gets stuck underneath and so in mid-fligth you need to extract 100,000 AA batteries with the end of a pencil.
This topic is closed for new posts.
