FAA grounding 787 fleet

[shivers9 1,174]

If you look closely at the pic's of the batteries, it is simple to see the problem...I can not believe you all missed it. All they need is to paint a little energizer bunny on each battery and it will go and go and go....... :p0502:

[CoolP 283]

One of the few cases where WD40 doesn't help. :Black Eye:

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

One of the few cases where WD40 doesn't help. :Black Eye:

 

Or Duct Tape :ph34r:

[CoolP 283]

Now we're talking.

[OzWhitey 3,353]

 

Or Duct Tape :ph34r:

 

How do you know? Have they actually tried this? Until the FAA reports the attempted repair with duct tape, wd40 and a multi-purpose impact device (aka hammer) - i would still expect this fix to be sucessful.

 

Duct tape will also help for the delaminating composite in flight problem that 787s reportedly have experienced.

[CoolP 283]

I've intercepted a secret email from the FAA. They can only be minutes away from fixing it.

[japascoe 98]

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

 

Tell that to the person who has to pay for the fuel (i.e. you, every time you buy a ticket). Also the accident rates don't agree with you: http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf (page 19), though to be fair that may also have something to do with how and where the older planes are operated.

 

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.

 

The flight test programme involved 6 aircraft, flying a total of 4,828 hours [per wikipedia]. There are now something like 50 planes in service, which combined have flown 50,000 hours. In addition building a prototype is not the same as building at full production rate. So, no, it's not a given every last problem should have shown up in testing.

[HighTowers 1,439]

I've intercepted a secret email from the FAA. They can only be minutes away from fixing it.

 

:LMAO: No Kidding!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

The flight test programme involved 6 aircraft, flying a total of 4,828 hours [per wikipedia]. There are now something like 50 planes in service, which combined have flown 50,000 hours. In addition building a prototype is not the same as building at full production rate. So, no, it's not a given every last problem should have shown up in testing.

 

I agree for the most part, but were talking about the battery and electrical system here. A major part of the aircraft and not just to one aircraft. This is a problem across multiple aircraft. In all their test flights, this sort of problem should have shown up. Unless they made some changes to the battery system at the end of all those test flights but figured they didnt need to test that in the air across multiple flights.

[japascoe 98]

:LMAO: No Kidding!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree for the most part, but were talking about the battery and electrical system here. A major part of the aircraft and not just to one aircraft. This is a problem across multiple aircraft. In all their test flights, this sort of problem should have shown up. Unless they made some changes to the battery system at the end of all those test flights but figured they didnt need to test that in the air across multiple flights.

 

When people have several months to build a system they don't make the same mistakes they do when they have to build 3.5 a month or whatever the current Dreamliner production rate is. A lot of the stuff for the prototypes probably wasn't even built using the same equipment they use for the line production. Additionally, let's say there's some kind of error in the battery system that only comes up once every 10,000 hours. That means there's a 50% chance it wouldn't have shown up during any of the test flights, but it will on average have occurred 5 times by now during operational usage (given the 50,000 flight hour figure cited in my previous post).

[HighTowers 1,439]

A lot of the stuff for the prototypes probably wasn't even built using the same equipment they use for the line production.

 

Not sure if that makes sense. I dont know anything about production lines and manufacturing, but using different equipment and maybe different manufactures seems to negate the whole flight testing process. If your testing an aircraft that is different in some ways as to production equipment and parts, then what is the point of flight testing. All the data is then unreliable or inconsistent.

 

Anyhow, seems that it is not an overcharging problem, and that there was a sudden big drop in V, so that may indicate other issues like a voltage protection circuit kicking in prematurely perhaps at the same time demand being very high. Hopefully a software issue as that can be fixed more easily than a redesign.

[japascoe 98]

Not sure if that makes sense. I dont know anything about production lines and manufacturing, but using different equipment and maybe different manufactures seems to negate the whole flight testing process. If your testing an aircraft that is different in some ways as to production equipment and parts, then what is the point of flight testing. All the data is then unreliable or inconsistent.

 

I recently visited Sonaca (a Belgian component manufacturer) and they said they preferred to make prototypes on more generic equipment and only to invest in up-scaling the production when the plane actually enters production, that way you can postpone your investment for a year or two, in which time your expensive machines wouldn't be doing much due to the low rate of production. Maybe I'm biased by being a structures guy, but for the structures at at-least flight testing is about checking whether the loads your were predicting for your structure are actually correct, not about whether your structural components are working.

[HighTowers 1,439]

More news. Apparently they were warned, but went unheeded.

 

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=66f459f8-4d6b-452b-961a-6b80dc4830a1

[Jude Bradley 660]

some more information here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/boeing_787_ntsb_report/

[CoolP 283]

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like 'if you've read one, you've read them all'. No offence to you guys posting and showing interest. But I think the press is in the same black hole as the investigators. Referring to the NTSB press briefing where my tenor would be 'please wait, we're on it.'

 

As for the press, the same old pictures, the same summaries and the same stuff from back in the years when the 787 was a plane on the drawing board. Seems like they have to report something, if you know what I mean.

 

Well, lets hope there's more on the root causes soon. :unsure: Me wants to see her flying. Such cool wings!

[WR269 367]

Kudos to everyone for contributing, a lot of those articles I had not found because I don't normally read those sources.

 

Very interesting, specially seeing the NTSB is officially stating the grounding could go on for longer than expected.

 

For what I understand, one incident occurred to the battery in the APU compartment, the other in the forward compartment.

 

One led to a fire, the other did not.

 

One was "possibly" overcharged at some point, the other definitely not.

 

Boeing states their safeguards for this type of event kicked in and prevented anything serious, the NTSB says they did nothing.

 

Boy!