Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANA 787 Emergency Landing in TAK - FAA grounds 787

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by TheKiecker View Post
    Sorry charlie, ( Gabriel) I guess its not the Airbus boys. Its just common sense.

    RT @MattSoleyn: #Breaking - #FAA: All U.S. Airlines ordered to ground the #Boeing 787 indefinitely. $BA #finance


    http://www.prod.kirotv.com/news/news...ng-787s/nTyfB/
    As for calling Gabriel for ITS, well, not too pleasant, ITS always called 787 a "plastic plane".
    Heres the official response to the grounding, http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2563
    "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Black Ram View Post
      "Before further flight, operators of U.S.-registered, Boeing 787 aircraft must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the batteries are safe."

      Shouldn't this had been part of the certification process? What happened to proper regulation? At least someone at the FAA had the balls to take action. Not saying this is necessarily a serious safety issue, but just in case. It's much better than having one crash "in downtown Manhattan". I certainly wouldn't like that, even though I do admire Airbus.
      I guess at this point no one really knows anything. There are rumors circulating about a known issue with the Li-ion batteries on the 787, which was played down. Credible or not, it does seem possible the issues with the 787 are stemming from the business side. The plane was three years and the pressure must have been tremendous. This could have led to cutting a few corners. Are we going to see a an exec or two take responsibility for this?

      This may be the best post ever on the internet.

      Comment


      • #33
        Oh well, i was going to LAX this weekend just to see the 787's.

        Screw it just remove the Li-Ion batteries and stick a few Energizer batteries in there

        Comment


        • #34
          Threads merged and please do discuss the topic not each other.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Alessandro View Post
            As already mentioned, mismanaged and underfunded programme. Airplane itself is very promising, I think they have to go back a step and swap the Li-Ion batteries for something
            else.
            I guess that is not so easy, as Li-ion was of course chosen for a reason: In the 787 many systems are operated electrically that conventionally were powered hydraulically or by something else. thus, the reserve batteries which supply the electricity in case of engine failure must provide a very high capacity.

            So I guess exchanging Li-Ion for something else is not an option - it's either to make the Li-ion technology safe for aviation, or to change the concept of the airplane. The latter would be a pity, because I think the way they were going is the right one!

            Comment


            • #36
              Just a question:

              Will Ethiopian, LAN continue to fly their 787 to places not in US, EU, or Japan?(Like from Ethiopia Capital to Tel Aviv, Guangzhou, etc)

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by hongmng View Post
                Just a question:

                Will Ethiopian, LAN continue to fly their 787 to places not in US, EU, or Japan?(Like from Ethiopia Capital to Tel Aviv, Guangzhou, etc)
                No. All the Airlines will almost certainly wait until the FAA gives the all clear.

                How long does everybody think it will be grounded for? I'll take a guess at 18 days.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by tsv View Post
                  No. All the Airlines will almost certainly wait until the FAA gives the all clear.

                  How long does everybody think it will be grounded for? I'll take a guess at 18 days.
                  Is that some standard duration, or do you have some basis for that guess?

                  Since the goal is to convince FAA that the batteries are safe, what can they do and how long would it take?

                  An interim solution of e.g. putting more temperature sensors and making unscheduled landings every time something gets a little warm might not be the most economic solution...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Impossible to say, considering the FAA wants them to prove that the battery and the containment are safe, while both failed 2 times in a week, so I guess proving this will be hard, if they do not find a fault in the installation or something.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I would put the question out as to 'what is new/novel in the particular system?'

                      I appreciate that the airframe is revolutionary rather than evolutionary and (again from the parlour talker corner) I would think that somehow the power draw/power flow-through on the battery system is for some reason exceeding the design intentions. Is it possible that therre's a SwissAir 111-type situation at platy?

                      Arrow

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        LOT Polish Airlines Boeing is stuck at KORD for time being. It had it first flight over seas and as soon as it landed FAA grounded all 787. I will try to go out to ORD soon and take some pictures of SP-LRA. It sucks because there was going to be a big celebration for passengers flying ORD-WAW

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by mfeldt View Post
                          Is that some standard duration, or do you have some basis for that guess?
                          Definitely just a guess, clearly very complex issues to be dealt with here and even the Key Players (FAA, Boeing and the Airlines) probably don't have much of an idea atm.

                          I would be surprised if the ban is lifted very quickly, as in a couple of days, because the Electrical issues have been building for a while now and they haven't nailed them yet. But as Boeing said in it's press release the full resources of the Company will be made available to get this sorted. I expect they would be hoping to find a solution within a couple of months at the very most. Every day they are grounded is expensive and destabilising for the program.

                          Does anyone know how long the DC-10 was grounded for?

                          Originally posted by mfeldt View Post
                          Since the goal is to convince FAA that the batteries are safe, what can they do and how long would it take?
                          Well the only way to convince the FAA the Batteries are safe is to identify the problem, come up with a solution for the problem and then convince the FAA the solution will work. I know nothing of electronics but I imagine the first step would be to trouble shoot, eg is it the Battery, is it the Circuitry, the charging system, the Design or some combination of these?

                          Some forums I have read have suggested this type of Battery is inherently unstable and the FAA were originally dubious about using so many of these Batteries. If this is true they are probably feeling dubious again. Possibly worse case scenario for Boeing would be a decision that they can't continue to use Li-ion Batteries, or at least to the extent they are at the moment. An FAA decision along those lines would likely result in major re-design work. Personally I doubt it will come to that but time will tell.


                          Originally posted by mfeldt View Post
                          An interim solution of e.g. putting more temperature sensors and making unscheduled landings every time something gets a little warm might not be the most economic solution...
                          How about directing they must carry at least 2 Fireman in the Pax cabin and 1 in the Cargo Hold?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            A Li-ion Battery fire is not easy to put down, unless you bury the thing in dirt.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by seahawk View Post
                              A Li-ion Battery fire is not easy to put down, unless you bury the thing in dirt.
                              A while back I was charging my 1000 mah battery of my Electric R/C, and while I was on my computer, I heard a sound like a whistle.

                              My fortunatly, my dad saw it right away the battery was swollen and knew what was about to happen. He grabbed a wet towel, used it and threw the battery out onto the cement floor by the exit stairs of the apartment, there was a red glow, we slowly poured water over that thing, and slowing the fumes died down, but the smell of smoke remained there for a few days with ashes on the ground.

                              Scary situation to be in, especially in China where I live in an apartment.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
                                It sucks because there was going to be a big celebration for passengers flying ORD-WAW
                                Thanks. Now for some reason I can't get out of my head that theme song by Celine Dion from Titanic.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X