787 Grounded: FAA Orders Airlines To Park Dreamliners Over Safety Conc

[Alex.B]

Second only to crashing.

Yep... but they are very close.

If a fire that you can't extinguish develops onboard an airliner you have no more than 15 minutes to get your a** on the ground.. otherwise you and everybody else on the plane will be dead.

And be sure to be on the ground with a very large margin on those 15 minutes...

This is what all the statistics and accident investigations say. Remember the UPS 747 in Dubai, or the Swissair MD11 in Halifax.

I don't really wanna be on a 787 with batteries catching fire in the middle of the Atlantic....

Edited January 26, 2013 by oldcrow

[Hawk10]

Excuse me, but exactly what is the FAA going to do for me when the batteries in the Dreamliner I'm flying in at FL 43 have overheated and caught fire? Beyond warning anybody below me to get the hell out of the way and possibly notifing my next of kin! (And that isn't a slam at the FAA - I don't believe there is anything in the job description of an air traffic controller that says any thing about telling pilots how to take care of maintance problems in their aircraft after all, the main part of the job is to ensure that two aircraft don't try to occupy the same piece of airspace at the same time). If I'm the PIC of an aircraft having burning battery problems, I'm going to A. Have the co-pilot working on one radio with the FAA to find the closest airport that we can safely land at and getting them to clear all the traffic below us so we can get to that airport and B. I get on a second radio on the company frequency and talk to some maintenance folks about how we keep the flying machine in the air until we can can safely land it!

[streetstream]

Totally agree :salute:/>

Streetstream, unless you're working - or anybody else - for the company that produces the 787 (Boeing), you should never expect from the evening news to find out the truth about why an aircraft was grounded. Even expert magazines that publish news and articles on their monthly issues are not to be trusted 100%.

Sernak

I see now. If i don't work on the 787 i can't say that i find it a serious problem when one of their types get grounded. Somebody else can come here and claim that everything is fine and that the grounding is just a small teething problem with just the same information. Explain to me the difference?

[streetstream]

Agreed but Streetstream shouldn't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Well since you like facts so much, here's one for you: Despite you claiming that the only thing Boeing has to do is swapping the batteries, the 787 is still grounded and i didn't hear Boeing making a statement that they've cracked it.

Edited January 29, 2013 by streetstream

[streetstream]

:whistle:/>

I will survive somehow, besides why confuse you with facts when your mind is already made up?

Great comebacks. I'm thoroughly impressed. Keep playing your game like you are to smart for this discussion, but fact is, you can't answer any question i ask and you can't quote me on all the BS you claim i wrote.

Now, i'm through with you and this stupid discussion. If you keep incisting that a grounding is an indication of just a small teething problem, go ahead. I don't buy it and despite you claims that they simply need to swap the batteries, we are almost 2 weeks further and it hasn't happend.

[skidbuggy]

Now that the jet is grounded, can Boeing conduct test flights of the 787?

Edited January 31, 2013 by skidbuggy

[11bee]

Boeing met with the FAA to propose a resolution to this issue and (if approved) allow them to get the 787's back in service.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/23/us-boeing-787-faa-idUSBRE91L11U20130223

A short version of the meeting would be something like this:

"Sorry Mr. FAA but we just can't figure out why those batteries caught fire but we've tried to come up with every possible reason and have designed a fix for each scenario. It's sure to make the problem go away but if we missed something, no big deal. We'll encase the battery in a stainless steel box and all those nasty flames and gases will be safely vented outside the aircraft. So what do you think about letting us install those fixes ASAP so we can get our planes back in the air and stop losing millions of dollars each day?"

I'm just not sure I agree with that approach. I know these guys are under incredible pressure to get these planes flying but if for some reason they missed something and they have to go through another, longer grounding (or god forbid, an aircraft is lost), that has the potential to take the company under.

FAA already got burned (no pun intended) for allowing BA to take some shortcuts on the original approval process for these batteries. I'm wondering if they would even consider agreeing to something like this? I think they should hold Boeing's feet to the fire (sorry, again no pun intended) and force them to determine the exact cause of these events before going on to the next step.

Edited February 23, 2013 by 11bee

[DutyCat]

I tend to agree. It cannot be that hard for a company that has the engineering resources that Boeing has to figure this out. There is a cause for every effect. Determine the cause and eliminate it. However, they may be able to push this through as an interim fix, for economic reasons. But if I were a customer, I would wait until the real fix is in place to take delivery of my jets, and demand some compensation in the meantime from Boeing.

As far as another grounding this taking the company under....probably not. Boeing has thousands of orders for aircraft other than the 787. Plus it has its defense and aerospace work. They would lose a ton of money though.

Edited February 23, 2013 by DutyCat

[11bee]

As far as another grounding this taking the company under....probably not. Boeing has thousands of orders for aircraft other than the 787. Plus it has its defense and aerospace work. They would lose a ton of money though.

Yeah, I think you are correct on that point. However, it could be the death of the 787 program. The DC-10 never really recovered from all of the issues it went through. I'd be a shame to see such a cutting edge design ultimately fail because BA wanted to take some shortcuts to resolve the current grounding.

[11bee]

Update on this issue. BA is pushing hard to get approval and if so, seems to think that they will be able to get the grounded planes back in service "within a few weeks".

http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2013/03/15/boeing-aims-to-wrap-up-787-testing-in-2-weeks

The ironic part is that all the fixes at ~ 150lbs in weight which completely offset the weight savings that the LI batteries would have offered. I hope Boeing has a team working on Plan B (replace these with regular batteries) if the new fixes don't prevent a similar problem down the road. It's still a bit worrisome that no one knows for sure what the root cause(s) is for the initial problem.

[streetstream]

It's still a bit worrisome that no one knows for sure what the root cause(s) is for the initial problem.

True. They didn't find the root cause, but did you see the proposed solution? It is redundant and personaly i'm impressed on how safe it seems (if the explanation they offer is true). If all the features they explain are working like they designed them, i'm confident that no battery fire can occur. It could still fail, but i believe it can't burn. So, well done Boeing. But i do hope that if after some time they can't come up with a lighter package, i too hope they switch to more conventional batteries. It makes more sense and is a worry less for the fleet.

Anyway, let's hope the test flights are uneventfull and that their estimate of a few weeks is correct. They have been grounden for a long 2 months now, it's time these birds fly again.

[Jay Chladek]

Yeah, I think you are correct on that point. However, it could be the death of the 787 program. The DC-10 never really recovered from all of the issues it went through.

I would say the DC-10 recovered reasonably well as it went on with a long career after its early issues. Plus it helped spawn the MD-11. Granted the MD-11 had a relatively short career in passenger service, but that was primarily due to the plane not having the range promised and it came out a little too early while Boeing was able to lobby for the ETOPS ratings that were given to the 777 (which killed the tri-jet for long range flights since twin jets were more economical to operate). Comparing it to the 787 situation is not a good idea though since the DC-10 had a few accidents which ended in fatalities while to my knowledge that has not happened with the 787. Granted the MD-11 experience with the crash of the Swiss one off of Canada due to an electrical fire is likely the reason why the FAA is cracking down hard. Fly a jet capable of ultra long range and you have a fire onboard and are WAY too far from a divert field... that can be a very sticky situation.

[11bee]

I would say the DC-10 recovered reasonably well as it went on with a long career after its early issues. Plus it helped spawn the MD-11. Granted the MD-11 had a relatively short career in passenger service, but that was primarily due to the plane not having the range promised and it came out a little too early while Boeing was able to lobby for the ETOPS ratings that were given to the 777 (which killed the tri-jet for long range flights since twin jets were more economical to operate). Comparing it to the 787 situation is not a good idea though since the DC-10 had a few accidents which ended in fatalities while to my knowledge that has not happened with the 787. Granted the MD-11 experience with the crash of the Swiss one off of Canada due to an electrical fire is likely the reason why the FAA is cracking down hard. Fly a jet capable of ultra long range and you have a fire onboard and are WAY too far from a divert field... that can be a very sticky situation.

MD-11 is a story in itself. Never lived up to the performance that McD promised so many airlines cancelled their orders and purchased 767's / A330's. Due to poor economics, it was rapidly phased out of passenger service and entered the freight market. The MD-11 has a horrible reputation but not for the reasons above. It's biggest flaw is it's difficulty to land. It has an unfortunate defect where it can "bounce" and then hit hard, resulting in tailstrikes or worst case in the aircraft flipping over. FEDEX lost a couple (one with the crew) in this fashion, another at Hong Kong, many others as well.

Check out the link below for a list of MD-11 accidents / incidents and note all the tailstrikes and bounced landings:

http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm

This is an older page, doesn't have the fatal FEDEX crash at Narita, nor the similar Lufthansa crash.

Edited March 17, 2013 by 11bee

[bashace]

Well, at least the tails haven't broken off in flight yet.

[muswp1]

Boeing completed it's first test flight with the battery fix with no issues:

Boeing completes first 787 Dreamliner test flight

[vince14]

Uh-oh....

Heathrow reopens after Boeing Dreamliner 787 fire

Vince

[Scooby]

Uh-oh....

Heathrow reopens after Boeing Dreamliner 787 fire

Vince

Sadly when I read the fix I was dumbfounded. They wrapped a battery with a history of overheating with additional insulation and stuck it in a metal box?

Obviously it has a cooling issue, IMHO they increased the odds of an overheat.

When we had NICADS go into thermal runaway on aircraf it was usually a bad cell or plugged cooling line.

[Scooby]

Uh-oh....

Heathrow reopens after Boeing Dreamliner 787 fire

Vince

Sadly when I read the fix I was dumbfounded. They wrapped a battery with a history of overheating with additional insulation and stuck it in a metal box?

Obviously it has a cooling issue, IMHO they increased the odds of an overheat.

When we had NICADS go into thermal runaway on aircraf it was usually a bad cell or plugged cooling line.

[11bee]

Sadly when I read the fix I was dumbfounded. They wrapped a battery with a history of overheating with additional insulation and stuck it in a metal box?

Obviously it has a cooling issue, IMHO they increased the odds of an overheat.

When we had NICADS go into thermal runaway on aircraf it was usually a bad cell or plugged cooling line.

Bad news for sure. However, it looks like the fire was located in the aft section of the fuselage, towards the tail (cabin roof appears to be scorched in that area). Anyone know the location of the second battery pack on the 787? Hoping for BA's sake that it was not another battery overheat.

Guessing the aircraft involved to be a total loss.

Edited July 12, 2013 by 11bee

[11bee]

Bad news for sure. However, it looks like the fire was located in the aft section of the fuselage, towards the tail (cabin roof appears to be scorched in that area). Anyone know the location of the second battery pack on the 787? Hoping for BA's sake that it was not another battery overheat.

Guessing the aircraft involved to be a total loss.

I answered my own question, it appears that the second battery is located almost directly under the scorched area of the Ethiopian jet. Obviously it could be something unrelated but it sure sucks being Boeing today.

[Finn]

Don't know if this particular a/c has crew rest bunks which are located below the scorch area in 787-8 which the airline has:

http://afbase.com/files/attach/images/673/519/378/787cutaway.jpg

Jari

[muswp1]

It could be a 787 that didn't get the fix that Boeing worked on. I'm not sure if Ethiopian Airlines was involved in the gounding.

[11bee]

Don't know if this particular a/c has crew rest bunks which are located below the scorch area in 787-8 which the airline has:

http://afbase.com/files/attach/images/673/519/378/787cutaway.jpg

Jari

Interesting. I didn't know the 787 had an overhead rest area. Maybe someone was sleeping in bed? :) Regardless, it could be something unrelated to the LI battery. I saw some video and it appeared that the area inside the aft entry door was in pretty good condition with no sign of smoke damage. You would think that if it was the underfloor LI battery and it burned enough to scorch the roof that there would be significant smoke / fire damage inside the aircraft. Anyway, I'm sure there will be more info shortly. Fingers crossed that it is not the battery, since Boeing has made it clear that they do not have a "Plan B" if they had another problem with these.

muswp1 - all 787's were retrofitted with the battery mods before being allowed back into service. Eithopian was one of the first airlines to get the fix and return to flight.

[muswp1]

Looks like it was not a battery issue:

My link