Dreamliner Nightmares

[Texan Eagle]

And it continues... details here.

Oh come on.. Daily Mail? That place is Fox News x 10 times when it comes to sensationalizing non-events.

You can figure out how seriously to take this news when the first statement calls the 787 a "plastic plane" :angry2:

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Oh come on.. Daily Mail? That place is Fox News x 10 times when it comes to sensationalizing non-events.

Thus the news about the Qatar Airlines flight being cancelled is completely invalid because someone does not like the source. hboy:

 

[jis]

As I had mentioned way back in the thread, the battery issues, unless resolved quickly, will result in an AD. And so it did. Except that the most recent battery issue was way more critical than the Boston one. It involved the main battery. So understandably the AD involved grounding.

(null)

 

[Texan Eagle]

Oh come on.. Daily Mail? That place is Fox News x 10 times when it comes to sensationalizing non-events.

Thus the news about the Qatar Airlines flight being cancelled is completely invalid because someone does not like the source. hboy:

I never said the news is invalid, find me a statement that says so if you can. All I said was, Daily Mail has the reputation for jacking up and sensationalizing most trivial of non-matters. Read the article. More than once they emphasize that this is a "plastic plane" as if that has got something to do with the problems, and none of the captions with the photos match the photos, they are generic sensational one liners.

That being said, at least the news they are reporting is true. Qatar Airways indeed grounded one Dreamliner, followed now by FAA instructing all Dreamliners in the US to be grounded, and from latest reports, Air India has grounded its entire Dreamliner fleet too.

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

This has just sent the 787 down the same path as Electra and DC-10. What may turn out to be a great plane has just been made into a demon as far as the commom flying public is concerned. The typical LCD news consumer has heard nothing but bad and is now convinced to stay away from 787.

 

[Texan Eagle]

The typical LCD news consumer has heard nothing but bad and is now convinced to stay away from 787.

Good. That way people who'd really be interested in flying on this technologically marvelous plane might get cheaper tickets and/or choice of seats. I, for one, am very keen on flying on a Dreamliner as soon as I can.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

This has just sent the 787 down the same path as Electra and DC-10. What may turn out to be a great plane has just been made into a demon as far as the commom flying public is concerned. The typical LCD news consumer has heard nothing but bad and is now convinced to stay away from 787.

The common flying public has no clue what aircraft they flew yesterday, or in the previous ten years for that matter, let alone what they'll be flying tomorrow. Take away the logos and most folks would probably never know. Thousands of lives have been lost to various 747 variants and yet there's no lasting public outrage over it. The DC-10 and MD-80 both suffered from designs that resulted in critical single failure points and yet the MD-80 is still with us to this very day.

That way people who'd really be interested in flying on this technologically marvelous plane might get cheaper tickets and/or choice of seats. I, for one, am very keen on flying on a Dreamliner as soon as I can.

I've flown 727's, 737's, 747's, 757's, 767's, and 777's, but no 787's. I'm pretty sure I'll get my chance sooner or later. I also want to try the A380 some day as well. Unfortunately I've long since missed my chance to fly the L-1011 and DC-10/MD-11 in scheduled service.

 

[jis]

For a balanced factual time line of events and where things stand now I recommend this article:

http://www.airlinereporter.com/2013/01/a-recap-the-boeing-787-dreamliner-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

There will be next to no effect on public acceptance of the 787. What makes the airline industry as safe as it is, is exactly this sort of early and aggressive addressing of problems.

As you can see from the report above and from the FAA AD, the main issue at hand is LI Ion batteries and the effectiveness of the containment structure around it. The exact cause of failures at a rate higher than expected is also apparently under study. The next couple of weeks should be interesting.

As far as flying in planes go, I have pretty much flown each major western model of large jets that is flying today except the 380, and of course a few that are not flying today too like the 707, DC-8, DC-10, L1011, Caravelle, BAC 1-11, Super VC10 and Convair 990. I have never flown on a Convair 880.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

"...the news they are reporting is true."

Which was why I cited the article. I didn't realize that I needed to only cite sources that pass 'the sniff test' by a peer review committee here at AU, even if the reason I cited the article was factual. Now that said, I did not make it clear why I was citing the article, but given the circumstances as they unfolded yesterday, I assumed that people would figure out the context, as the quote above would seem to bear out.

 

[jis]

Current status of all delivered 787s:

http://www.ch-aviation.ch/blog/2013/01/17/current-status-of-b787-8-operations/

incidentally it is intriguing how many railroad related forums are discussing the 787. Afterall given its target market it will have exactly zero impact on Amtrak or any other passenger railroad in any western country for that matter (The use of 787 by United on domestic legs is just an interim training thing pending introduction on international segments) until of course railroads get into the business of doing nonstop stages greater than 2000 miles (potentially upto 8000 miles) mostly across oceans. Japan is a different matter, where the 787 indeed serves on routes that could potentially be served by the Shinkansen, but does not have enough traffic to justify the cost of using Shinkansen, in addition to competing head to head with Shinkansen on some routes.

 

[jis]

I found this document that lists 787 parts that are supplied by Hamilton Sundstrand:

http://www.hamiltonsundstrand.com/StaticFiles/HS/Communications/General/Documents/787%20Fact%20Sheet_June%202011.pdf

Looks like the Rolls-Royce bearings have failed as have some unspecified set of parts of the electrical management system.

I understand that Thales is a subcontractor for certain components of the parts delivered by H/S.

 

[trainman74]

Unfortunately I've long since missed my chance to fly the L-1011 and DC-10/MD-11 in scheduled service.

For a number of years, Delta had a TPA-ATL-LGW flight that was regularly operated by an L-1011, and I ended up on the TPA-ATL leg several times. I remember always seeing the TPA baggage handlers loading box after box labeled "tropical fish" into the pressurized portion of the hold, apparently bound for fish tanks across the Atlantic.

(I know I've flown on a DC-10 as well, but don't remember specifics.)

 

[Texan Eagle]

Unfortunately I've long since missed my chance to fly the L-1011 and DC-10/MD-11 in scheduled service.

For a number of years, Delta had a TPA-ATL-LGW flight that was regularly operated by an L-1011, and I ended up on the TPA-ATL leg several times. I remember always seeing the TPA baggage handlers loading box after box labeled "tropical fish" into the pressurized portion of the hold, apparently bound for fish tanks across the Atlantic.

(I know I've flown on a DC-10 as well, but don't remember specifics.)

You guys were lucky, you got to fly on these exotic birds. I have only flown so far on Boeing 717, 737, 747 and 777, Airbus A318, A319, A320, A321, A330 and Mc-Donnell Douglas MD-80 series.

On my wishlist currently is to fly on 787 Dreamliner, A380, A340 and MD-11 (the last few remaining tri-jet still in mainline commercial service).

 

[leemell]

This has just sent the 787 down the same path as Electra and DC-10. What may turn out to be a great plane has just been made into a demon as far as the commom flying public is concerned. The typical LCD news consumer has heard nothing but bad and is now convinced to stay away from 787.

I'm not so sure about that. The Electra had two unexplainable crashes from high altitude. It took virtually the entire airline manufacturer industry and NASA to find the proximate cause and it took months of aerodynamic investigation to find the the root cause (a case of what was called "whirl mode vibration of the props coupling to the wing spar at certain speeds and prop RPM). Boeing appears to know the proximate cause right now and needs to find the root cause. One thing about the 787 manufacture is that the delays in certification caused about 50 planes to be built before it was signed off. Most of the non-operational problems are on the Japanese airplanes and they took all of the early deliveries. There probably are manufacturing and configuration differences involved here.

 

[jis]

United also found the power system wiring harness wired incorrectly on two of its 787s and corrected them. So there are some manufacturing defects even in the not so early birds. United's earliest is frame 45 which was actually the 5th one delivered to United I think.

 

[Trogdor]

Not only that, but the Japan Airlines jet that had the fire was only a few weeks old, having been delivered in December, 2012, well over a year after the first plane was delivered.

That said, I don't know exactly when it was built, and whether it sat on a flight line for a couple of years waiting for rework before entering service.

 

[jis]

Not only that, but the Japan Airlines jet that had the fire was only a few weeks old, having been delivered in December, 2012, well over a year after the first plane was delivered.
That said, I don't know exactly when it was built, and whether it sat on a flight line for a couple of years waiting for rework before entering service.

If it was delivered in December it was line number 84, since that is the only one that JAL got in December, very very newly built.

One of the current surmises is that the problem may be with a batch of battery controller units which monitors the charging and discharging. Apparently even slightly overcharged batteries are prone to self destruction. But it is all speculation at this point..

 

[CHamilton]

One of the current surmises is that the problem may be with a batch of battery controller units which monitors the charging and discharging. Apparently even slightly overcharged batteries are prone to self destruction. But it is all speculation at this point..

Here's a short primer on lithium-ion batteries, and how they might go wrong.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Those are rather large lithium batteries and seem to have a flimsier structure than lithium batteries found in some electric and hybrid vehicles. I guess weight was the primary issue they were targeting. Considering how quickly a fire can become a critical event on an aircraft I would think this issue could use some serious modification regardless of the battery supplier.

 

[CHamilton]

Indeed they are huge. Here's another article discussing the issue in somewhat more detail.

 

[jis]

Some facts: http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/boeing-dreamliner-faa-battery-idINDEE90G03B20130117

Incidentally I found this post on airliners.net very informative regarding Li-Ion batteries and speculations related to the 787 incidents.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Lithium-ion batteries are rather temperamental compared to more conventional battery designs. The reason we don't worry about them being dangerous in our homes or on our person is because any lithium-ion battery large enough to do any serious damage also comes with relatively advanced electronic monitoring and control circuitry designed to prevent any critical failures. Unfortunately the underlying technology is still volatile and when the monitoring and control circuity fails it can bring disastrous results. The stories you hear of portable devices and laptops bursting into flames when accidentally overcharged is not a joke. It really happens. Luckily it's generally pretty rare and doesn't normally result in loss of life or limb. However, on a plane the potential for death and destruction caused by any sort of fire or extreme heat is much higher than here on the ground and the design of the cells and the control hardware needs to as close to foolproof as possible. Something in the design of the cells or the circuitry has apparently been missed. The root cause could be anyone's guess at this moment, but until it's discovered and resolved I think grounding the fleet was the right move by the FAA and other regulators. No need to watch a 787 go down before taking preemptive action this time around. The fact that this many failures made it into a production aircraft is a major lapse in our regulatory system in my view, but at least the regulators got the reaction to these failures right by working to prevent any more of them until we understood the cause and had a solution lined up.

 

[leemell]

Those are rather large lithium batteries and seem to have a flimsier structure than lithium batteries found in some electric and hybrid vehicles. I guess weight was the primary issue they were targeting. Considering how quickly a fire can become a critical event on an aircraft I would think this issue could use some serious modification regardless of the battery supplier.

A report that i read today and can't find now says the ramp fire after landing was in a battery that was both under heavy load and being recharged at that time. We will know a lot more after the NTSB and the labs dig into it.

 

[CHamilton]

Boeing has idea to fix 787 battery problem

SEATTLE – KING 5 News has learned that Boeing has a serious idea in the works to deal with the problem of 787 battery fires in the future: better containment and better venting.

.....

But the current smoke venting plan has run into a headwind with the NTSB and even the FAA, with the grounding of the fleet of 50 Dreamliners worldwide. Is there a better way?

Sources say that Boeing is seriously considering a better containment system that solves both the collateral damage to other sensitive equipment and deals with the smoke better. The plan is to build a stronger and larger containment box or dome around the battery, and vent smoke and potential debris overboard through a hose or other channel.

 

[Blackwolf]

Boeing has idea to fix 787 battery problem

SEATTLE – KING 5 News has learned that Boeing has a serious idea in the works to deal with the problem of 787 battery fires in the future: better containment and better venting.

.....

But the current smoke venting plan has run into a headwind with the NTSB and even the FAA, with the grounding of the fleet of 50 Dreamliners worldwide. Is there a better way?

Sources say that Boeing is seriously considering a better containment system that solves both the collateral damage to other sensitive equipment and deals with the smoke better. The plan is to build a stronger and larger containment box or dome around the battery, and vent smoke and potential debris overboard through a hose or other channel.

Oh boy. As a layman, but one who has several years of experience working in and around both fixed wing and rotorwing aircraft, this is how I read Boeing's new idea. "We don't know whats wrong with the battery, nor are we able to really fix it. So! We'll just put a containment wall around the thing and call it good!"

Of course, a story aired to the public through TV never has the meaty details that shed some real light on the subject (watered-down entertainment only.) But if one were to use this story at face value:

Great idea. Wall it up, hide it, and pipe the smoke outside. :wacko: