It looks to be a prototype company plane. Either that or an airline told them to shove it.

 

Actually here is the story on the flight:

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/faa-clears-boeing-one-time-787-flight-1B8278051

It looks to be a prototype company plane. Either that or an airline told them to shove it.

 

Actually here is the story on the flight:

 

http://www.nbcnews.c...light-1B8278051

 

I think it's China Southern Airlines Reg B-2727. So you're right, an airline told them to shove it. :LMAO: :LMAO: :LMAO:

 

RJ

 

 

Photo of the 787 landing at the Everett field today. This 787 was not delivered to the customer yet (China Southern) as explained in today's NTSB briefing (nothing really new). Video of landing here on CNBC

 

 

http://youtu.be/qwys97RjhcQ

 

RJ

I hope they can add the other planes and flights too. Safely and soon.

I hope they can add the other planes and flights too. Safely and soon.

 

I don't see how. We have a failure (short circuit of cell) without known cause. More serious, we have an airworthiness certification that is, in part, based on safety engineering process (hazard analysis) that appears faulty ( no hazard of cell - to - cell propagation of failure and a probability of cell failure resulting in venting of smoke of 1x10 **-7 flight hours). Until the engineering can be validated, I don't see a basis on which FAA can make a determination that the 787 is airworthy. That's beside the problem of determining the cause of short circuit in cell 6.

 

scott s.

.

I don't see how. We have a failure (short circuit of cell) without known cause. More serious, we have an airworthiness certification that is, in part, based on safety engineering process (hazard analysis) that appears faulty ( no hazard of cell - to - cell propagation of failure and a probability of cell failure resulting in venting of smoke of 1x10 **-7 flight hours). Until the engineering can be validated, I don't see a basis on which FAA can make a determination that the 787 is airworthy. That's beside the problem of determining the cause of short circuit in cell 6.

 

scott s.

.

 

This is also going to affect the Airbus A350, as it also uses Lithium-Ion batteries. I just read a story, that Airbus was looking for an alternative system, but for now, they are sticking with the Lithium-Ions. If the FAA or other regulatory entity in other countries, end up banning their use, both companies, are going to have to redesign their systems.

In my humble opinion - this whole mess would have been avoided if Boeing's current leadership was on top of their game. But Boeing's CEO is more involved with civic planning (and moving to Chicago - total time waste) than leading the design and construction of the flagship airplane.

 

One of the best damning articles I have read about Boeing's fiasco with 787. As an engineer and investment strategist, early on in the design process news, one could tell that 787 was being managed by tons of pointy head bosses (read Dilbert) - and passengers ended up alpha-testing this plane. I just can't figure out how no one saw this coming. 787 truly has become "ScreamLiner" - the article openly points to how idiotic the current management at Boeing is - Damn, this is sad.

 

http://www.forbes.co...rong-at-boeing/

 

I'm pretty sure it's not Boeing's fault that the company who designed the battery fails to build them consistently. An aircraft company should not be talked down on simply because they want to try new technology.

Not sure....Airbus A380 uses Lithium Ion batteries and so will the A350 but the 787 uses LIthium Cobalt...they are different. Boeing selected theirs because it offers far more voltage output but it is known to be unstable (plenty of posts around with the explanation, quite interesting).

 

The certification process relied on data supplied by Boeing and the manufacturer of the battery (go figure), and as the NTSB as said "some risks were not addressed". Now if the NTSB has concerns about the safety of these devices in the current 787 set up, what they are telling us is that their findings so far do not paint a pretty picture.

Progress! Test flights are allowed now. Restrictions apply and only ZA005 is flying but it's nice to see them moving on a more regular basis.

 

Since they aim for collecting inflight data on those, the view on the systems or technology used did not seem to offer a glimpse on why the smoke and fire took place. Tricky task if the error source only shows up in certain conditions. Moisture, vibrations, FOD, temp changes and so on.. a long list.

Progress! Test flights are allowed now. Restrictions apply and only ZA005 is flying but it's nice to see them moving on a more regular basis.

 

Since they aim for collecting inflight data on those, the view on the systems or technology used did not seem to offer a glimpse on why the smoke and fire took place. Tricky task if the error source only shows up in certain conditions. Moisture, vibrations, FOD, temp changes and so on.. a long list.

 

I think it is a mistake at this stage to allow Boeing to do the testing of them, they clearly have a conflict of interest here. Testing should be done, but by an independent entity, say NASA! They used NASA when they had the problem with Toyota' unintended acceleration problem, so the precedent is set. I think the public would have more confidence too if the problem was certified fixed, by a uninterested competent 3rd party, especially one like NASA!

I think it is a mistake at this stage to allow Boeing to do the testing of them, they clearly have a conflict of interest here.

 

And whats wrong with Count Dracula getting a job at the Red Cross. <--just kidding.

It really sounds like it's a manufacturing problem with the batteries, not sure how test flights will help re-create this problem. Maybe vibration etc,, don't know.

 

RJ

I may have to ask how you define 'allow Boeing to do the testing'. The reasons for asking. First, the supervision obviously doesn't belong to Boeing. The FAA rules that one and the other authorities are right behind. So if there was any doubt on the results or on another possible smoke and fire incident, no FAA guy will allow passenger flights. Especially not with the current media pressure. The FAA currently also fights for its own image, lets not forget about that fact. Releasing the 787 too soon will not be an option.

 

Second, the expertise needed will limit the folks actually being able to look closer a lot. This was and is the case on certifications as well as on any investigation after aviation related incidents. They've always incorporated the manufacturers and suppliers and they most likely always will. The experts on the 787 are the ones building her and her parts/modules.

 

While the press tries to establish a smoking gun like viewpoint on 'outsourced' testing and certification work, it's pretty much the norm since there's no FAA core structure for experts on every plane and system. And nobody would want to pay such a pool as a standing army.

 

Also, since we are talking about engineers at work, I may add that no one of them will be interested in producing an 'unsafe' (media term) plane in the first place. And even the management isn't too keen on selling planes getting grounded a second time or even producing bad press when more than batteries burn. Adding to that, I have doubts that the standards on for example documenting test results allow much interpretation in any other than the right direction.

 

So if you set up a team of Boeing engineers to test the conditions the FAA wants to see 'clear', all they can and most likely will do is returning data as ordered. And since Boeing did produce safe planes and did show that their testing and manufacturing skills are up to the task, there's no harm in ordering them to take their plane to the skies and deliver what the authorities want to have. More data on the case.

 

I agree that the first look may offer something like 'and if they cut corners?' and that media living from selling paper or click counts likes to stress exactly that. Attention getter. Same as they've stressed that international manufacturing or even full modules on planes would be something new.

 

Edited. Update from the NTSB. Not much new stuff, but at least some factors which they currently rule out. http://www.ntsb.gov/...-787_2-7-13.pdf

I may have to ask how you define 'allow Boeing to do the testing'. The reasons for asking. First, the supervision obviously doesn't belong to Boeing. The FAA rules that one and the other authorities are right behind. So if there was any doubt on the results or on another possible smoke and fire incident, no FAA guy will allow passenger flights. Especially not with the current media pressure. The FAA currently also fights for its own image, lets not forget about that fact. Releasing the 787 too soon will not be an option.

 

I don't think the public has as much confidence in FAA findings, when they had originally certified the design even after many warning signs. First the general concerns of safety with these type of batteries (Remember all the laptop fires using these types of batteries), and the battery test failure in 2006 that burned the building down.

 

Second, the expertise needed will limit the folks actually being able to look closer a lot. This was and is the case on certifications as well as on any investigation after aviation related incidents. They've always incorporated the manufacturers and suppliers and they most likely always will. The experts on the 787 are the ones building her and her parts/modules.

 

That's why i suggested NASA, they clearly have the expertise to do a thorough investigation on the cause, and come up with a viable remedy to the problem(s) in a case like this!

Tom, it's a bit hard to discuss on that level. But I will try.

 

I don't think the public has as much confidence in FAA findings, when they had originally certified the design even after many warning signs.

You mean the 'warning sings' from previous smoking gun articles? :mellow: While I leave the judgement about them totally up to you, the amount of smoking guns alone may be food for thought on the 787 case. Media does not like running investigations with professional folks only stating things when there is something to say and otherwise remaining silent.

 

I think the NTSB report (see link above) perfectly shows what there is and, at the same time, what not.

 

That's why i suggested NASA, they clearly have the expertise to do a thorough investigation on the cause, and come up with a viable remedy to the problem(s) in a case like this!

I'm sure we both share a great admiration for people working at NASA. But an investigation on a state of the art aeroplane is a bit different from looking at stuck pedals on a car. As said, if there was a solution for only letting external and unbiased folks work on the 787, I think somebody would already use it.

 

You can grab externals for all kind of things, but the more detailed and even confidential it gets, the harder it may be to keep them in numbers and unbiased (they tend to work where the pay is good, so no FAA). Remember, the authorities don't build airplanes, they certify them with e.g. placing restrictions and pre-described test scenarios on them, later looking at the outcome. Again, 'outsourced' testing and even certification work didn't come up with the 787 but decades before.

 

You need good investigators and project leaders now. Those you have. But the engineers knowing every detail of the 787 systems are the ones at Boeing and their suppliers. Thales and so on. This isn't their first plane and won't be their last, so they may also care for a good and open mood among the certification heads. And, first of all, no repeated or even worse events. It hurts the sales and harms future projects. That money pressure actually is the one establishing and harming safety at the very same time.

 

They (FAA) could remain totally passive by the way, telling Boeing to prove that their plane is safe enough (which would be the more accurate term when it comes to system design). And I'm sure they will feel the pressure arising from the previously used 'custom' certification on the batteries as, now, later standards are used on upcoming planes. That's actually what Airbus fears, a review of those standards, forcing them to redesign the A350. It could even be smart to drop the new battery design over there just because of the media frenzy. Well, lets see.

 

See? You have some more players in the game, even the competition will be keen on getting quick and conclusive results instead of interim fixes and wonky 'go' decisions. By this, I think the test flights still show progress on the case and hopefully return some clues.

Well NTSB has reported finding the origin of the JAL fire. http://www.aviatime.com/en/commercial-aviation/commercial-aviation-news/other/6251-ntsb-identifies-origin-of-jal-boeing-787-battery-fire