Boeing 787: regulators admit bafflement over source of aircraft's fault

[SierraHotel 989]

Boeing 787: regulators admit bafflement over source of aircraft's fault

Regulators say they still have no clear idea of what went wrong but Japanese officials rule out fault with battery manufacturer

 

Boeing's hopes of a quick solution to its problems with the grounded 787 Dreamliner jet have been dashed by regulators in the US and Japan who have conceded that they still have no clear idea what went wrong with the world's most technologically advanced passenger plane.

 

Regulators have been examining two incidents involving 787s earlier this month that led to a worldwide grounding of the new airliner. So far, investigators have concentrated on the plane's controversial use of lithium ion batteries, one of which burst into flames, triggering a smoke alarm.

 

On Monday, Japan's transport ministry official Shigeru Takano said his investigations had found no evidence that battery maker GS Yuasa was the source of the problems. His statement came after US regulators said on Sunday that they had made "no significant discoveries" three weeks into their investigation into the source of a fire that broke out early this month on a Japan Airlines 787 parked at Boston's Logan airport.

 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) had been looking at the batteries' charger, made by Securaplane Technologies, a unit of Britain's Meggitt engineering firm. NTSB said they had found no evidence of flaws that could have caused the incident. NTSB also said parts of the charred battery were too damaged to yield useful information.

 

The latest updates appear to further rule out a speedy resolution to Boeing's woes. Company executives had told airline customers that they hoped to get the 787 up in the air soon. There had been speculation that a batch of faulty batteries may have led to the two incidents, but this now looks less likely. On Wednesday, Boeing chief Jim McNerney will speak for the first time about the aircraft's woes when he unveils the company's latest results.

 

Robert Mann, founder of consultant RW Mann, said: "If you rule out battery failure due to manufacturer and you rule out charging, you are left with intermittent faults, which are very difficult to track down, or some unintended consequence from a usage problem."

 

Both faults were found on Japanese airliners, and Mann speculated that their use for shorter flights, as opposed to other airlines which have used the 787s for longer haul, may have a bearing on the issue. Such flights would lead to more frequent charging of the lithium-ion batteries, which have proven volatile in many other situations and have never before been used so extensively in such a large passenger plane.

 

"But I am grasping at straws," Mann said. "As is everyone. A lot smarter people than me are looking at this."

 

Mann said Boeing was now in for a period of "intense brow-furrowing", and a short-term fix looked very unlikely.

 

Boeing's hi-tech Dreamliner was dogged by delays even before the grounding. The company has invested $20bn developing the plane, which makes use of electric rather than hydraulic systems, and carbon fiber panels to save weight and fuel.

 

Dreamliner's issues have cast a harsh light on regulators' approval of the aircraft. Japan's regulators eased safety restrictions ahead of the plane's certification, according to Reuters. Boeing spokeswoman Lori Gunter on Sunday said the 787 had "the most rigorous test program in Boeing's history and the most robust certification program ever conducted."

[WR269 367]

Not sure if anybody has seen this or has been posted before, but here is the link to the interim report on the fire about the JAL 787 in Boston.

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013/boeing_787/JAL_B-787_1-24-13.pdf

[CoolP 283]

Thanks for the interim, Will. I think clueless sums it up. :unsure: Well, lets hope they get something soon. Working on a solution to a know problem would be a huge step over the current hunt for the needle in the haystack.

 

Mike, your post looks like a big quote. You may want to give a source, not only for the legal reasons. Makes sense. :smile: Guardian maybe?

[Dillon 2,198]

I guess this global approach to building aircraft doesn't always work. Too many hands in the cookie jar and not enough over site. Different manufacturing standards in different places. Hard to nail down sub standard materials.

[CoolP 283]

I think that, if it was that easy and only some 'sub standard' would lead to problems, we would already see a solution. At least a clear find.

 

Different manufacturing standards in different places.

Welcome to the world of project management. :smile: Airplanes represent the successful part of it by the way and, of course, there's a way to catch the bad batch before it gets installed. As said, it doesn't seem that easy on the 787 case.

[MarkW 1,502]

Here is a clue

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270510/Boeing-Dreamliner-batteries-inherently-unsafe-says-Tesla-car-company-founder-emerges-airline-replaced-TEN-times-fleet-grounded.html

[CoolP 283]

Nah, nothing on the actual causes. Just another CEO (knowledgeable though) talking about what he thinks. Perhaps even out of context. Media, you know. I've read a lot of those things in the past weeks. If the batteries were so unsafe (by design) there would have been far more and even far worse to report than 'just' some smoke and heat development.

 

I still think the press is in a black hole. 'Report something and make it sound important:' Wait, it's the system!

[mgh 89]

From the article

 

Elon Musk, who is the founder of Tesla car company, told British aerospace journal Flight International about the batteries: 'Unfortunately, the pack architecture supplied to Boeing is inherently unsafe.'

 

But flying is inherently unsafe too!

[scott967 62]

Since the obvious things like product / manuacturing defect seem to be getting ruled out, my money would be on a system engineering problem, in particular interface spec.

 

scott s.

.