Frankly, if I were an operator of a fleet of 787's that had been grounded, I would breathe a sigh of relief that the problem was just the batteries and not something more serious like the having to replace the entire electrical system or that the composite fuselage was delaminating in flight.

These planes exist for one reason - to make money for the airline. Replacing the batteries, whatever type they are, would be a relatively simple fix. The higher weight of other batteries would be insignificant to the fact that the fleet that cost me hundreds of millions of dollars is not making me a dime sitting on the ground. I would accept the temporary weight penalty of other batteries if it got my aircraft back in the air. The lithium batteries will probably be redesigned and reinstalled eventually.

As others have noted, all new aircraft go through teething problems once they are put in service. The 787 is no different. Fortunately, the battery problem was found before it resulted in a catastrophic accident. The sky is not falling and neither is the 787.

...the problem was just the batteries...

 

That's not been established.

Frankly, if I were an operator of a fleet of 787's that had been grounded, I would breathe a sigh of relief that the problem was just the batteries and not something more serious like the having to replace the entire electrical system or that the composite fuselage was delaminating in flight.

These planes exist for one reason - to make money for the airline. Replacing the batteries, whatever type they are, would be a relatively simple fix. The higher weight of other batteries would be insignificant to the fact that the fleet that cost me hundreds of millions of dollars is not making me a dime sitting on the ground. I would accept the temporary weight penalty of other batteries if it got my aircraft back in the air. The lithium batteries will probably be redesigned and reinstalled eventually.

As others have noted, all new aircraft go through teething problems once they are put in service. The 787 is no different. Fortunately, the battery problem was found before it resulted in a catastrophic accident. The sky is not falling and neither is the 787.

That's not been established.

Whoa. Talk about deja vu.

Frankly, if I were an operator of a fleet of 787's that had been grounded, I would breathe a sigh of relief that the problem was just the batteries and not something more serious like the having to replace the entire electrical system or that the composite fuselage was delaminating in flight.

These planes exist for one reason - to make money for the airline. Replacing the batteries, whatever type they are, would be a relatively simple fix. The higher weight of other batteries would be insignificant to the fact that the fleet that cost me hundreds of millions of dollars is not making me a dime sitting on the ground. I would accept the temporary weight penalty of other batteries if it got my aircraft back in the air. The lithium batteries will probably be redesigned and reinstalled eventually.

As others have noted, all new aircraft go through teething problems once they are put in service. The 787 is no different. Fortunately, the battery problem was found before it resulted in a catastrophic accident. The sky is not falling and neither is the 787.

 

If the batteries have to be replaced by different ones it's not just a simple fix. Other types of batteries will certainly be heaver and probably be bigger too. That means that first of all it's not a given that the new batteries will even fit in the battery compartment. Secondly all the support structures (the rack the batteries are in, the panel that is fixed to, the frames holding that panel) will have to be re-analysed to see if they have sufficient strength to cope with the increased loads due to the heavier batteries. If not they will have to be modified. Finally, unless the new batteries have exactly the same characteristics as the current ones in terms of voltage and current the electric system may have to be redesigned. Does that mean the sky is falling? No. But it does mean that installing different batteries is a lot more complicated than just saying 'well we'll just stick some different batteries in for a while'.

Time to get the DC-10's and 747 classics outta the bone yard and replace that new fangled carbon fiber and glass panels with aluiminum and steam gauges

Boeing's move to Chicago has at least provided plenty of work for their corporate pilots...

 

They have a fleet of six GV's and two BBJ's, of which the GV's are in use daily flying back and forth from Chicago to Seattle... :lol:

All this still doesnt explain why this wouldnt show up in the many many test flights they did. If there was a fault, or an overload , overcharge, all these things being monitored during test flights, it wouldve, shoudlve shown up.

 

Maybe its the guy in seat 21A who has some mega laptop drawing 15A at the socket. Or the lady in 45B who fired up the 5000W hair dryer. :lol:

All this still doesnt explain why this wouldnt show up in the many many test flights they did. If there was a fault, or an overload , overcharge, all these things being monitored during test flights, it wouldve, shoudlve shown up.

 

Remember British Airways Flight 38 in 2008 which crashed at Heathrow. The cause was ice in the fuel obsstructing its flow in the Fuel/Oil Heat Exchangers. This resulting in an unacceptable rise in oil temperature. The Electronic Engine Control unit detected this and rolled back the thrust.

 

This had not been detecting during testing or subsequent in-service flights.

Time to get the DC-10's and 747 classics outta the bone yard and replace that new fangled carbon fiber and glass panels with aluiminum and steam gauges

 

It might be old tech....but its good tech.

Guys,

I think you have misinterpreted what I posted. I never said that the batteries had been established as the only problem. I said that IF the batteries were "just" (read only problem), as the owner I would be relieved that it was not a larger problem such as the entire electrical needing to be replaced.

I also never said that installing new batteries, racks, etc. was an simple fix. I said it was a "relatively" easy fix compared to replacing the aircraft's electrical system or a problem with the composite fuselage. Those would be much more difficult fixes not only in terms of time, labor and money.

 

 

Bill

Maybe its the guy in seat 21A who has some mega laptop drawing 15A at the socket. Or the lady in 45B who fired up the 5000W hair dryer. :lol:

Connecting the dots. http://forum.avsim.net/topic/397576-playing-fsx-on-the-plane/

All this still doesnt explain why this wouldnt show up in the many many test flights they did. If there was a fault, or an overload , overcharge, all these things being monitored during test flights, it wouldve, shoudlve shown up.

 

Maybe its the guy in seat 21A who has some mega laptop drawing 15A at the socket. Or the lady in 45B who fired up the 5000W hair dryer. :lol:

 

Apparently the FAA outsourced the testing and approval of the battery certification to Boeing.

 

Talk about conflict of interest!

 

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/01/19/dreamliner-787-battery-fires-burn-faa-and-media-too/#comment-14900

Erm, I think we've now entered the conspiracy level and harsh wording area. Referring to the posted blog entry. Does that help the case or does it actually just.. stir the pot? :mellow:

 

Well, if there's more from the officials which grounded the plane, please let us know.

 

From looking around a bit and back in time, the introduction of the former NiCd tech wasn't that flawless too. But.. people get used to all sort of things, right?

 

Fun fact, you've got lithium based batteries on the ISS. Source. Same supplier as on the 787. I wonder what the procedure is when they start catching fire? ^_^ Land? Lets head for that QRH.

Erm, I think we've now entered the conspiracy level and harsh wording area. Referring to the posted blog entry. Does that help the case or does it actually just.. stir the pot? :mellow:

 

Well, if there's more from the officials which grounded the plane, please let us know.

 

From looking around a bit and back in time, the introduction of the former NiCd tech wasn't that flawless too. But.. people get used to all sort of things, right?

 

Fun fact, you've got lithium based batteries on the ISS. Source. I wonder what the procedure is when they start catching fire? Land? Lets head for that QRH.

 

Don't dramatise things, (LoL) this is a forum for swapping information about this event.

 

If you don't like the information that comes out or makes you feel defensive, maybe stop reading for a while. If you believe this is conspiracy, you should read some of the aviation forums around!

I think you have misinterpreted what I posted. I never said that the batteries had been established as the only problem. I said that IF the batteries were "just" (read only problem), as the owner I would be relieved that it was not a larger problem such as the entire electrical needing to be replaced.

 

No. What you actually said was in full

 

Frankly, if I were an operator of a fleet of 787's that had been grounded, I would breathe a sigh of relief that the problem was just the batteries and not something more serious like the having to replace the entire electrical system or that the composite fuselage was delaminating in flight.