Old 01-17-2013, 12:59 PM   #41
justLOT787
Member
 
justLOT787's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: ORD
Posts: 233
Default

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
justLOT787 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 01:21 PM   #42
tsv
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 476
Smile

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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?
tsv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 01:40 PM   #43
seahawk
Administrator
 
seahawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany - near DUS
Posts: 7,039



Send a message via MSN to seahawk
Default

A Li-ion Battery fire is not easy to put down, unless you bury the thing in dirt.
seahawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 02:22 PM   #44
hongmng
Member
 
hongmng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: East Greenbush, NY, USA
Posts: 162



Send a message via Skype™ to hongmng
Default

Quote:
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.
__________________
hongmng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 05:34 PM   #45
Peter_K
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 261
Default

Quote:
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.
Peter_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 11:47 PM   #46
Gabriel
Senior Member
 
Gabriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina
Posts: 4,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfeldt View Post
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!
What about Li-Po? I know nothing about batteries, but I understand that they have a lower per-volume energy density but a higher per-weight energy density (meaning that, on equal capacity, the Li-Po are larger but lighter than the Li-ion)
Gabriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 11:53 PM   #47
UALdave
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 183
Default

Well, CBS news said tonight that all 787s have been grounded. Worldwide.

I hope this turns out well for the 787 and for Boeing, but if they have to replace those lithium ion batteries, that will be expensive.

Why hasn't the 747-8 had any problems like the 787's had? I know that it shares a lot of the same technology.
UALdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2013, 12:02 AM   #48
Deadstick
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 769
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_K View Post
Thanks. Now for some reason I can't get out of my head that theme song by Celine Dion from Titanic.
You have officially ruined my evening now. I have it reverberating in my head.
Deadstick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2013, 12:02 AM   #49
3WE
Senior Member
 
3WE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,202
Default

The highly diverse* planning team meets to discuss batteries.

Aggressive, young business graduate- "I hear that Lithium Ion batteries have great performance."

Tired elder engineer- "Yeah, and I recall laptop computers catching fire and real scare that it might happen on an airplane."

Aggressive, young business graduate- "But we will engineer safety systems around it, and our supplier says they can design batteries that won't overheat and catch fire, and do it for less than the company you suggested.

Tired elder engineer- "Yeah, whatever, never mind that the company I worked with supplied safe batteries for years, and never mind that at 41,000 feet in the middle of the ocean, might be a crappy situation if something went wrong."

Conclusion: Team lead feels that the engineer has a bad attitude and drools at the potential accolades for finding a cheaper, better battery

*Footnote "Diverse" is a jab at the tendency to get folks who LACK EXPERTISE to work on these teams and is not a statement in regard to sex, race, sexual orientation, age, religion, veteran or disability status.
__________________
"Shit, 3WE was right" Gabriel, The Hell Better Aeroengineer, 7/22/2014.
3WE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2013, 12:17 AM   #50
3WE
Senior Member
 
3WE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,202
Default

Let us not forget that in its early days of service some Airbus engine parts decided to blow through the engine cowling and the wing...

Yeah, it was mostly the engine's fault, but a number of critical things in the wing- incuding the spars came very close to being taken out, making the flight come awfully close to ending in a smoking hole.
__________________
"Shit, 3WE was right" Gabriel, The Hell Better Aeroengineer, 7/22/2014.
3WE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2013, 01:43 AM   #51
UALdave
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 183
Default

I really don't understand what investigations will produce, with regards to the fires-if lithium ion batteries pose a high fire risk, then that's all there is too it.
UALdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2013, 11:33 AM   #52
3WE
Senior Member
 
3WE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UALdave View Post

...I really don't understand...

...pose a high fire risk...
The issue to understand is that the batteries pose a very low fire risk...

...but maybe not low enough.

Therefore that's not all there is too it.

Remember, an engine failure on a single engine plane is a bad thing. However, if you are going to experience an engine failure, you are better off in a single than a light twin.

So, just swapping out batteries might not be the answer and maybe someone should consider putting parachutes on light planes?
__________________
"Shit, 3WE was right" Gabriel, The Hell Better Aeroengineer, 7/22/2014.
3WE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2013, 12:13 PM   #53
Arrow
Junior Member
 
Arrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Old Credit Pilsner; not just for breakfast anymore
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadstick View Post
You have officially ruined my evening now. I have it reverberating in my head.
Could be worse; he could've mentioned "Relax" by Frank Goes To Hollywood.......oh.....uh...sorry. Didn't mean to make another earworm
[/ot]
Arrow
Arrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2013, 01:56 PM   #54
chris78cpr
Member
 
chris78cpr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London - UK
Posts: 978



Default

Does anyone know what the reg of the ANA 787 that made the emergency landing?
__________________
Chris Sharps
5D3 | 5D2 | 7D | 1D2 | 10D | 400D | 1V | 3
17-40F4L | 24-105F4LIS | 70-200F2.8LIS | 100-400LIS
24F1.4L II | 50F1.2L | 85F1.2L II | 15F2.8 Fisheye | 50F1.4 | 100F2.8 Macro
1.4x | 550EX x2

Fuji X100

chris78cpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2013, 02:05 PM   #55
hongmng
Member
 
hongmng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: East Greenbush, NY, USA
Posts: 162



Send a message via Skype™ to hongmng
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris78cpr View Post
Does anyone know what the reg of the ANA 787 that made the emergency landing?
It was JA804A

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=45c377c5&opt=0
__________________
hongmng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2013, 02:08 PM   #56
chris78cpr
Member
 
chris78cpr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London - UK
Posts: 978



Default

Thanks!
__________________
Chris Sharps
5D3 | 5D2 | 7D | 1D2 | 10D | 400D | 1V | 3
17-40F4L | 24-105F4LIS | 70-200F2.8LIS | 100-400LIS
24F1.4L II | 50F1.2L | 85F1.2L II | 15F2.8 Fisheye | 50F1.4 | 100F2.8 Macro
1.4x | 550EX x2

Fuji X100

chris78cpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2013, 02:41 PM   #57
Kpeters
Junior Member
 
Kpeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica
Posts: 37
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
Remember, an engine failure on a single engine plane is a bad thing. However, if you are going to experience an engine failure, you are better off in a single than a light twin.
I know it's off topic but can you elaborate on that? Other than not being qualified enough to fly with only 1 engine on a twin, wouldn't the power from the remaining engine at least give you a controlled descent?

Now back to the 787 I think your analogy with the tired engineer is quite right! I've seen that happen in many many businesses in my life.
__________________
AD.com apocalypse survivor. 727 Fan.
Kpeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2013, 02:55 PM   #58
hongmng
Member
 
hongmng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: East Greenbush, NY, USA
Posts: 162



Send a message via Skype™ to hongmng
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
Remember, an engine failure on a single engine plane is a bad thing. However, if you are going to experience an engine failure, you are better off in a single than a light twin.
I think every twin when certified by FAA needs to be able to climb at a certain rate in the event of an engine failure?
__________________
hongmng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2013, 03:23 PM   #59
Gabriel
Senior Member
 
Gabriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina
Posts: 4,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kpeters View Post
I know it's off topic but can you elaborate on that? Other than not being qualified enough to fly with only 1 engine on a twin, wouldn't the power from the remaining engine at least give you a controlled descent?
The problem is two-fold.
1) On a twin, you have twice the chances to suffer an engine failure.
2) Pilots of small twins, on average, are not that good at handling 1 dead engine and the other at full power. The result is that, sometimes, they loss control, with consequences typically much worse than a forced-off airport landing with no power.

Combining 1) and 2), the result is that, after an engine failure, there are proportionally more death in light twins than in singles.

But that's on average. If you are rally good at handling engine failures in light twins, your chances to survive an engine failure are better in a twin than in a single.
Gabriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2013, 03:34 PM   #60
Gabriel
Senior Member
 
Gabriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina
Posts: 4,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hongmng View Post
I think every twin when certified by FAA needs to be able to climb at a certain rate in the event of an engine failure?
In fact, not so.

Light PART 23 twins that have a stall speed of 61kts or less are not required to be able to climb in one engine.

Other than that, all light PART 23 twins, regardless of its stall speed, are not required to be able to climb in one engine in other than clean config, the prop of the dead engine feathered, and the speed t "best engine-out climb speed", which is typically faster than the take-off speed. That means that there is a short period of time after rotation where you'll not be able to climb on one engine.
Gabriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:07 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright JetPhotos.Net 2003-2011