Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANA 787 Emergency Landing in TAK - FAA grounds 787

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

  • So, what type of battery does the 747-8 use? Because they haven't the problems that the 787 has.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by UALdave View Post
      So, what type of battery does the 747-8 use? Because they haven't the problems that the 787 has.
      Earlier commercial airplane models, such as the 777, 747 and MD-11, used nickel cadmium (NiCd) batteries, which are heavier, larger and less powerful.
      Source: http://787updates.newairplane.com/78...nced-Airplanes

      I think this should say: "...........heavier and larger for equal power."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
        Earlier commercial airplane models, such as the 777, 747 and MD-11, used nickel cadmium (NiCd) batteries, which are heavier, larger and less powerful.
        Source: http://787updates.newairplane.com/78...nced-Airplanes

        I think this should say: "...........heavier and larger for equal power."
        OK, thanks! Well, Boeing is allowed now to carry out some test flights with what they think is their battery fix/solution. It will be interesting to see how those go.

        When do people on here think that the 787 will resume commercial service? I've read people who say that it will resume this summer, but I don't know.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
          Earlier commercial airplane models, such as the 777, 747 and MD-11, used nickel cadmium (NiCd) batteries, which are heavier, larger and less powerful.
          Source: http://787updates.newairplane.com/78...nced-Airplanes

          I think this should say: "...........heavier and larger for equal power."
          I'm sure you'll find some range beyond the size of a Li-ion battery but before reaching an equal power where the NiCd will be all three heavier, lager and less powerful.

          --- 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


          • Glad they arent sponsored by "non smoking generation", http://www.nyteknik.se/popular_tekni...cle3653904.ece
            "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

            Comment


            • Boeing's containment solution is approved for testing:

              The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has approved Boeing's proposal to fix battery issues on the 787 Dreamliner, allowing the airframer to conduct...

              Comment


              • Boeing 787 Dreamliner goes on a test flight



                A Boeing 787 took off from Seattle Monday on a test flight to see if a redesigned battery system works properly while the plane is in the air.


                Boeing says that a test flight to check the 787 Dreamliner's new battery system "went according to plan".


                Who's on first?..........

                Comment


                • EVERETT, Wash., April 5, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Boeing (NYSE:BA) completed a 787 certification demonstration flight today on line number 86, a Boeing-owned production airplane built for LOT Polish Airlines. Today's flight marks the final certification test for the new battery system, completing the testing required by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
                  Today's flight departed from Paine Field in Everett, Wash. at 10:39 a.m. Pacific with a crew of 11 onboard, including two representatives from the FAA. The airplane flew for 1 hour and 49 minutes, landing back at Paine Field at 12:28 p.m. Pacific.
                  The crew reported that the certification demonstration plan was straightforward and the flight was uneventful. The purpose of the flight was to demonstrate that the new battery system performs as intended during normal and non-normal flight conditions.
                  Boeing will now gather and analyze the data and submit the required materials to the FAA. We expect to deliver all of the materials to the FAA in the coming days. Once we deliver the materials we stand ready to reply to additional requests and continue in dialog with the FAA to ensure we have met all of their expectations.
                  Boeing (NYSE:BA) completed a 787 certification demonstration flight today on line number 86, a Boeing-owned production airplane built for LOT Polish...

                  --- 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


                  • Quote: The purpose of the flight was to demonstrate that the new battery system performs as intended during normal and non-normal flight conditions.

                    I wonder how non-normal flight conditions were demonstrated.
                    Did the battery get short circuited or set on fire in some way?
                    If not, I do not see how the two previous battery anomalies were duplicated. I know this test could be accomplished on the ground but the venting aspect could best be tested in flight (if judged to be too dangerous then perhaps a wind tunnel test).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
                      Quote: The purpose of the flight was to demonstrate that the new battery system performs as intended during normal and non-normal flight conditions.

                      I wonder how non-normal flight conditions were demonstrated.
                      Did the battery get short circuited or set on fire in some way?
                      Shortcircuited? Yes, on ground tests.
                      Set on fire? They tried hard, but failed.

                      According to Boeing, there was never a battery fire in the Logan and Japan events.

                      There was a thermal runaway inside the battery casing, where one cell failed and vented and the heat made another cell to fail and vent and so on, but there is no evidence of fire inside the casing.

                      In the Logan even, there was a very small fire of a connector outside the casing. In the Japan even, there was no fire at all, the smoke detector in the electronics bay detected the vapours of electrolyte vented from the battery and reconfigured the air system to vent the air in the electronics bay overboard, as (then) desinged.

                      In the new design, the vapurs are contained inside the new enclosure and vented directly overboard (via a duct with a burst disk), without ever reaching the electronics bay.

                      During the new ground tests they short-circuited the cells until they vented and tried to set the inside of the ecnlosure on fire with an ignitor, but they couldn't.

                      I very much guess that the abnormal situation tested in flight didn't include setting the battery on fire. Probably abnormal situation that requiere abnormal things from the electrical system, like "failing" the generators, starting the APU, letting the RAT kick in, and those kind of things.

                      If not, I do not see how the two previous battery anomalies were duplicated. I know this test could be accomplished on the ground but the venting aspect could best be tested in flight
                      Why? I think that a ground test is perfectly suitable for shorting the battery, let it vent, and see what happend with the burst disk and if there is any leack out of the enclosure (except through the vent pipe), and also to make a hydraulic test to veryfy that the enclosure withstands a much higher pressure than that required to burst the disks.

                      Boeing has formed teams consisting of hundreds of engineering and technical experts who are working around the clock to get the 787 back to flight status, and all of us continue to assist the NTSB and other government agencies in the 787 investigations. Get to know our teams and people.


                      If you can withstand a 1:30 video (that's hour, not minute), then do it.

                      You'll also learn that they don't know the cause of the failures in those two incidents, so what they did is think of all the ways that they could have happened and address them all.

                      The set of solutions under certification include:
                      - A better control of the manufacturing process.
                      - Improved post-manufacturing quality tests.
                      - Drain holes in the battery case to drain any moisture.
                      - Wrapping the cells in electrically insulating material to prevent shorts.
                      - A modification of the battery charger to make the charging smoother on the battery (the max voltage is lwered, the min voltage is increased, and the shape of the charging signal or wave is filtered to make it smoother).
                      - Adding electrical and thermal insulating spacer between the battery cells to prevent propagation in case one cell falis and vents.
                      - The new inox enclosure (the old case is still included inside the new enclosure).

                      While I agree that adressing all possible causes is great, and that is the best possible course of action when the root cause is not identified (or even when it is), there is always a chance that the real case of these insident was not among the ones that they could imagine, so I really don't feel very confident that these events won't happen again. 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. However, the Boeing presentation convinced me that the safety of the plane will not be jeoparized by such an event.

                      --- 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
                        In the new design, the vapurs are contained inside the new enclosure and vented directly overboard (via a duct with a burst disk), without ever reaching the electronics bay.
                        The way you say it, it actually doesn't sound like a bad solution.

                        I just hope there isn't a more general problem with the electronics, which caused the incidents. Some articles has cited Boeing people saying that, but they were also blaming outsourcing for everything.

                        Comment


                        • Looks like the 787 will be back in the Sky soon but the interesting question is what will go wrong next?

                          There will definitely be more probs as the A/C is still in it's teething years but will they be minor or major? How will the Airlines and Public react given it's already checkered history?

                          And what type of probs will emerge?

                          My money is on more electrical issues, I sense this is the main area of vulnerability. Not necessarily with the Batteries.

                          Interesting times ahead, Boeing needs to be prepared for major damage control if there is another "event" in the near future.

                          Comment


                          • 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.

                            Comment


                            • 787 flying again

                              I would as much as all the rest of the members of this forum like to see the Dreamliner flying again, as soon as possible. I do not subscribe to the anti-Boeing/anti Airbus allegations. I believe most of the people here are more clever than that. I do not subscribe to the description of the A380 having its engines (plural) blowing up, either. The RR uncontained engine failure was caused by lack of inspection of engine parts, and had essentially nothing to do with unproven technologies. What worries me, and probably a few more, is that Boeing took on board a battery technology which has had documented problems with self combustion. It could have been Airbus who tested this for the first time, and had the same problems. It does not matter. The industry, in its strive to be competitive, are accelerating its efforts to adopt new technology. This means that the risks of failures will rise, unless the governance of the industry and the certification processes are keeping up.
                              There are several failures in the process with the 787 battery issue. Boeing did not keep their subcontractors (GE Yuasa, Thales) under enough control. The certification process was not geared to understand and monitor the new technology, and a questionable design slipped through and received approval.
                              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. Fire on board an aircraft is probably the worst scenario of all. In-flight the resources to fight a fire are very limited and only if we are lucky, we will be close enough to an airport, to land and extinguish the fire before it is too late.
                              For the airline industry, and the īplane manufacturers it is essential that the customers have confidence in the aircrafts offered in service.
                              It is crucial that Boeing gets its act together and proves that the 787 is indeed an aircraft safe to fly. At the moment, with the pressure applied from all sides, this will be a very difficult task to accomplish correctly. Even Boeing, one of the worlds largest corporations, has a limit to its banking credit.
                              The production line turns out airplanes at a pre-determined rate and there is no certified solution in place. The customers are assembling their lawyers to see what compensation they can exert from Boeing for the delays. Not an envyable position, indeed. We can only hope that they keep their cool, and despite the pressure produce something that we can feel comfortable flying in. I do not believe we can afford to have only one airplane manufacturer serving the airline industry. It takes sound competition to get good, safe and economically viable products to the market.
                              If the market feels that a product is unsafe, it will respond by choosing not to use that product.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Passion for flying View Post
                                I do not subscribe to the description of the A380 having its engines (plural) blowing up, either. The RR uncontained engine failure was caused by lack of inspection of engine parts, and had essentially nothing to do with unproven technologies.
                                The Qantas engine problem in the A380, IMHO, was much worse than the battery problems with the 787. The airplane as a whole was much more damaged and the safe continuation of flight was much more compromised. One engine was destroyed. Shrapnel from that engine punctured the wing, almost severing the main wing-beam and missing a fuel tank for inches (you know that fuel vapors and hot shrapnel are not a nice combo), punctured the pressurized hull not piercing passengers just due to sheer luck, and damaged several parts of several electrical and hydraulic systems which left the plane with several systems compromised (flaps, slats, spoilers, braking, gear, steering). The other engine on the same side remained uncontrollably running at a fixed setting (to the point that they could not shut it down after landing). The other two reverted to an abnormal law. With a high weight and no flaps, they had to make a very fast landing despite doubts about the braking ability. They all but a few feet of a very long runway, burst a lot of tires and set the brakes ablaze.

                                When they identified the problem, they go inspect the other engines across the fleet in all airlines and found a lot of them with the same problem. So it was not just one bad part. Anything that you can say about parts quality and suppliers governance for Boeing is equally applicable to Airbus (and/or RR).

                                What worries me, and probably a few more, is that Boeing took on board a battery technology which has had documented problems with self combustion. [...] Fire on board an aircraft is probably the worst scenario of all. In-flight the resources to fight a fire are very limited and only if we are lucky, we will be close enough to an airport, to land and extinguish the fire before it is too late.
                                Repeat after me: THERE WAS NO BATTERY FIRE IN THE 787.
                                There was a thermal runaway inside a cell that propagated to the rest of the cells, leading to all cells venting the vaporized electrolyte.

                                In the Japan event, the vapors of electrolyte vented to the electronics bay. A smoke detector detected this and the airplane reconfigured its ventilation system, venting the air of the electronics bay overboard, as designed. There was no fire inside or outside the battery case, and the heat damage was circumscribed to the battery and surrounding elements. There was no structural damage at all.

                                In the Logan event the plane was already "turned off", so the airplane could not detect the vapor and reconfigure the ventilation system. There was no fore inside the battery, but a connector attached to the case became contaminated with the electrolyte and hot enough to catch fire: a 3 inces flame. All the materials in the electrical bay are self-extinguishing, so a fire cannot be sustained unless there is a source of energy external to the thing that is burning. In this case, the battery runaway was that source of energy, but the fire could not have propagated away from that source. The fire on the connector would have extinguished itself after burning or after the battery stopped generating heat. There was minimal structural heat damage surrounding the battery, not compromising the structural integrity of the plane.

                                The new battery enclosure will prevent, in case of a battery failure, that any of the electrolyte and most of the heat from ever reach the electronics bay, venting them directly overboard via a pipe with a burst disk.

                                I am quite confident that the two incident 787 would have been able to continue safe flight and land even if the failure would have hit int he middle of the ocean.

                                And while I am not so confident that the root cause is solved and that there will be no more incidents like these, I am extremely-super confident that the new design leaves the integrity of the airplane completely assured in such an event.

                                The failed battery is not used in flight unless you have a dual engine failure or a quadruple generator failure. And even then you have the other battery and the RAT as backups. So the mere issue of loosing the battery in flight is not of concern either.

                                There are several failures in the process with the 787 battery issue. Boeing did not keep their subcontractors (GE Yuasa, Thales) under enough control. The certification process was not geared to understand and monitor the new technology, and a questionable design slipped through and received approval.
                                Did you know that Li-ion batteries have been in use in the aerospace industry for years? (while not as a main battery on commercial airplanes) And how many battery fires have you heard of in electric cars, which also use Li-ion?

                                Did you know that, other than with the 787, there have been hundreds of battery failures in commercial airplanes in the last years? And that none of them was with a Li-ion battery, but with Ni-Cd? And that some of these failures DID involve a battery fire (unlike the 787)?

                                If the market feels that a product is unsafe, it will respond by choosing not to use that product.
                                With that part, I fully agree. And you are the proof that the market can feel things that are different from the reality.

                                My fear now is that, if these battery failures continue, it won't matter that the plane is never put at risk. The public image of those events can still make a lot of damage to Boeing and the Airlines.

                                --- 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

                                Working...
                                X