Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANA 787 Emergency Landing in TAK - FAA grounds 787

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    - A better control of the manufacturing process.
    - Improved post-manufacturing quality tests.
    These two, I think may address your concern:

    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    Especially, because I have the feeling that the original failure happened inside the cell, and not outside like an external short, and so little corrective action aims at the cell itself.
    Perhaps it's difficult to explain in detail the manufacturing improvements.

    Comment


    • NTSB Webcast of Forum on Li-ion batteries in transportation.

      This may be to do with transportation of Li-ion batteries but might be informative.

      Comment


      • @ Gabriel

        Quote: "The Qantas engine problem in the A380, IMHO, was much worse than the battery problems with the 787.."

        I completely agree, from the perspective of the risk it posed to the aeroplane and its crew and passengers. However, it had nothing to do with the introduction of new technology. It was "just" a major mechanical manufacturing cock-up by Rolls-Royce.

        Quote: "Repeat after me: THERE WAS NO BATTERY FIRE IN THE 787."

        I agree it did not burn the aircraft out. However, that was possibly more attributed to pure luck than a well executed battery design. As you rightly say, in one of the instances, there was fire outside the enclosure, albeit "only" flames through a connector shell. The pictures taken inside the compartment showed a lot of charring due to high temperatures and smoke. The risk of open fire may however not even have been the big issue. The consequences to the aircraft electronics (adjacent equipment bay damage, total electrical blackout) may in reality be the real threat.

        Let me use a well known example:
        The crew of Swissair 111 did not see any flames, so technically there was in their opinion no fire either. The events were to prove different.
        In that case, by the way, the fire was allegedly caused by a cabin entertainment system with a design and/or installation flaw. More careful monitoring of the design and installation or possibly stricter certification could likely have saved the lives of those good people.

        Quote: "Did you know that Li-ion batteries have been in use in the aerospace industry for years?"

        Yes, I am aware of this, after 36 years in the industry. However, as you say, not used in this application and no to the extent used in the 787.

        It surprises me how little all the alleged NiCd battery fires have been published here. Anyone capable of providing examples? Or maybe the events were just not as spectacular as with the 787? Maybe those fires did not occur in brand new aircraft, within days of each other either?

        Your final statement really embraces the whole discussion;
        Yes, if the battery problems persist, and aircraft are again grounded for alleged battery self combustion, the industry is in real trouble, not to speak of Boeing.

        As to the reality check:

        Quote: "And you are the proof that the market can feel things that are different from the reality."

        Now, if the battery problem was such a minor issue as you wish to say, how come the authorities grounded the fleet, and why is it still grounded? My interpretation is, that the authorities took this seriously, and did not wait for an aircraft to fall out of the skies for reason of an on board fire. I honestly believe they understood the severity of having an energy source of such capacity tucked away inside the structure. An energy source which does not need external factors such as air (containing oxygen) to support the self-combustion, should it break out.

        Finally, and believe me when I say this, I will be very happy when the 787 gets back in the air. I wish it will have a long and safe life in service.
        I am however worried about the pressure under which the engineers have to work to get there. It is not a good environment in which to solve difficult problems.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Passion for flying View Post

          . . . Flying is inherently dangerous, as we are in an element where we will only be allowed to visit and survive if we are smart enough and abide the rules. . . . .If the market feels that a product is unsafe, it will respond by choosing not to use that product.
          Before flying to India in January (and returning at the end of March) I had been discussing the issue of flight safety from an humanist point of view with a professional pilot who has also trained and is practicing as an aviation psychologist. His cognitive starting point in reassuring nervous fliers and confused people like me is that flying is inherently safe. The issues with the Dreamliner have very much intrigued me. There are many types of psychologist, a word meaning one having 'knowledge' of the 'soul' in the ancient language from which it derives. There are certainly business psychologists, there are many industrial psychologists, but no aircraft psychologists and I think this is a branch of aviation psychology which needs a specialist. Because aircraft types are like children; they have a conception by design, a birth on the production line and are wanted (or not!) by their parents, the money-grubbing, hearts-of-ice ladies and gentlemen who manage our aviation sector. They did not look out for the best interests of their child, the Dreamliner, its reliability, its safety, the manner in which it was cared for as a child, before leaving home to go into the wide sky with an airline, its adult home. The parents were greedy and stupid and selfish, like so many of us humans are. They cut corners for profit, they farmed out different parts of the birth process to different nannies and specialists and caused much confusion and low quality development issues in the little girl. Because of their greed, stupidity, insecurity and anxiety which they acted out on the child, they were coldly ignorant and unable to envision that what you do to a child will carry through to adulthood as a character trait. Concorde had a childhood issue, it had tyre/undercarriage weakness. The DC 10 had problems with airframe and engines throughout its adult life. And the Dreamliner has electrical weakness which was not seen by the parents, although they did it to the child, it was their fault, and now this weakness is plainly manifest in the young woman. Perhaps I should contact Boeing and offer my services as a good parenting adviser. They and all the other aircraft manufacturers certainly seem to need that kind of help.

          For many of us, frightened as we may be, there is no choice, we have to fly if we are to complete our business or professional arrangements. If, for reasons of too-fast technological innovation to cut costs, we end up with flawed aircraft, we still have to fly. Nothing humans do is ever anywhere near perfect, but sometimes their behaviour is almost unbelievably self-destructive.

          Comment


          • FAA says yes and Boeing now can start fixing the 787. All Airlines with 50 grounded 787 will start flying by mid June. That is good news. Good luck Boeing.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
              FAA says yes and Boeing now can start fixing the 787. All Airlines with 50 grounded 787 will start flying by mid June. That is good news. Good luck Boeing.
              Good news - howver this FAA approval is good for US Airlines - the FAA equivalents in other countries must also approve the fix for their countries.

              Comment


              • 23/04/2013 The Agency today approved the design change of the Boeing 787-8 Auxiliary Power Unit battery, battery charger and battery enclosure installation and certifies that the changes proposed by Boeing meet the EASA Type Certification Basis requirements. The applicable airworthiness directive will now be updated which will allow the European operated aircraft to return to service as soon as the modification will be installed.

                The European Union Authority for aviation safety

                Comment


                • Surely ironic that the years after planned entry into service of the most technologically advanced Jetliner ever built today there is only one Country in the world that has managed to assemble the resources to get it into the Sky - Ethiopa!

                  And who would have imagined that other Airlines would have had to send 787's to Addis Ababa to get them flightworthy!

                  Amazing.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tsv View Post
                    Surely ironic that the years after planned entry into service of the most technologically advanced Jetliner ever built today there is only one Country in the world that has managed to assemble the resources to get it into the Sky - Ethiopa!

                    And who would could have imagined that other Airlines would have had to send 787's to Addis Ababa to get them flightworthy!

                    Amazing.
                    I must have missed something along the way.
                    What are you talking about?

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      I must have missed something along the way.
                      What are you talking about?
                      Ethiopia started flying passengers on a 787 a day or two ago. Presumably with the upgraded batteries. Or maybe Ethiopia does not have the bureaurocracy of other countries.

                      I have not heard that they are fixing 787s from other countries.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
                        Ethiopia started flying passengers on a 787 a day or two ago. Presumably with the upgraded batteries. Or maybe Ethiopia does not have the bureaurocracy of other countries.

                        I have not heard that they are fixing 787s from other countries.
                        Yes ET was the first Airline to put it's 787's back into service after the grounding. QR has since become the second. LOT is flying one (or maybe both) of it's Aircraft to Addis Ababa for the fix.

                        Comment


                        • Congratulations to United, Boeing, DIA and Narita for the inaugural Denver - Tokyo Dreamliner flight.
                          Interesting interview regarding its safety:
                          http://youtu.be/d5PQVkncWJU
                          moving quickly in air

                          Comment


                          • Tokyo Dreamliner is among the best IMHO

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
                              OMG, every one is panicking, 787 will be as good as the 777, 767 and all the other Boeing's out there. Every airbus also had it's problems most recant A380 with engines exploding, and there was no groundings of these planes. I think people communicate more and news travels faster the when A380 had problems, I also think anti Boeing people want to do some damage to Boeing, that is why 787 has bad press.
                              Still think we are just "panicking" mate?

                              Comment


                              • The 787 - A technical masterpiece ?

                                It seems to me that the Boeing 787 is an airplane without any special skills. Technically not round and full of problems and dangerous breakdowns. The FAA gronded the type because of many many problems we all know.
                                Now it happened again in Heathrow when a 787 from Ethiopian caught fire and was damaged and in Boston recently when this bird had to return to Logan Intl. because of a light that warned from a fire.

                                These are more than theeting troubles to me. They are now dangerous and nasty. The 787 : a great plane with starting problems or a flop ?

                                What do you think out there around the globe ?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X