Slashdot Mirror
Boeing 787 Dreamliner Grounded In US and EU
Some Bitch writes "Following previous stories that the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration was to review the safety of the Boeing 787 and that Japan had already grounded their fleet, the FAA has issued an airworthiness directive which has been endorsed around the world with the fleets of all eight airlines flying the 787 now grounded. EADS (the parent company of Airbus) shares were up 3.9% at close of business." General Electric's call for more sifting of more data from more sensors might have some resonance right now within Boeing.
How embarassing for Boeing to have a $200M plane grounded because of a battery problem. They should have bought quality OEM batteries instead of going for the cheap Chinese imports on EBay.
The battery issue is front and center as it should be - if you have seen images of the melted battery it's pretty scary. But there are OTHER issues as well, from leaky fuel lines to bubbles and delam issues in the compositesâ¦
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Sure, EADS's shares are up, and since their major competitor Boeing had bad news today, perhaps we can speculate that "EADS shares up on bad news for rival Boeing", as finance journalists like to speculate. But you know who else's shares went up today? Boeing's. The stock market is weird, and a lot of factors go into price movements.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
...more of a shareholder nightmare.
"If it ain't Boeing, it's still going!"
See http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/15/uk-boeing-dreamliner-ntsb-idUSLNE90E00Y20130115
This looks bad.
I hope Boeing can [manage|subcontract] themselves out of this before they go broke...
To put a witty saying into 120 characters, jst rmv ll th vwls.
Indeed, I was in Redmond for business purposes a few years ago and part of the arranged evening amusement was a guided tour of the Boeing museum. So many great aircraft came from Boeing, this is an unfortunate bump on the road to progress.
they outsourced building some of parts used to make the 787
The A380's had quite a few missteps when they first went into service as well. Both are very new designs with a lot of new tech, sadly I am sure eventually one of them will be a fatal misstep, still won't stop me flying on them, I get an an A380 for a 17 hour flight in 2 days. I don't think I would be any less comfortable if it was a Dreamliner.
This plane uses a tremendous amount of electricity, see: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/01/boeing-787-electric-fire-grounding/
The li-ion batteries are from a company in Japan, but I wonder where they were manufactured. In the past, subcontractors outside Japan have done shoddy jobs making batteries, such as replacing mylar with paper. Once it's sealed up, how do you test it? Additionally, these batteries use cobolt oxide and are even more prone to overheating than tradition li-ion batteries. The batteries took a long time to certify.
A notorious SwissAir crash over the Atlantic was due to an overheated electrical bus. In a rush to get gambling devices onto seat backs, the airline had gone with a system that required a full computer for each display, which required more power than a more centralized system.
Japan grounded all of its Dreamliners a day earlier than America or the EU, and yet they aren't mentioned in the headline? There are 24 Dreamliners in service in Japan, more than in any other country. You'd think they'd get some credit for having their air safety experts raise the alarm while the US was still "confident in the safety of the aircraft.
From the link: http://slashdot.org/topic/bi/the-787-dreamliner-scenario-how-data-can-solve-epic-messes/
"That’s supremely bad news for Boeing, which poured millions of dollars into the 787’s development."
No wonder its having issues. Or maybe Dr. Evil wrote this article?
Remember the Ford Pinto? This might be something fixable, but if it gets a reputation...
Proverbs 21:19
Two things come to mind. In previous bad battery situation, the initial run of batteries were fine. Then when they went into production, perhaps with other subcontractors, they got the garbage.
Also, with the extensive testing of the planes, we've got to assume they run them under max power load, with every seat running laptops, playing movies on seatbacks, etc., right? And max use of air circulation, etc. And whatever else makes the batteries cycle to make up for generated power, however it works.
Some problems, especially manufacturing defects, only manifest themselves with a large enough sample size. Presumably none of the aircraft they used for certification encountered this particular problem.
It really seems silly to me that they chose to use a lithium ion battery with a cobalt cathode for use as a critical component of an airplane. They are not environmentally friendly, prone to fire, and don't last as long as some other technologies. They could have gone with a Lithium Iron battery and been much safer and require less maintenance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery That would have only added about 18 pounds to the entire aircraft, certainly worth the greatly increased safety factor. Just goes to show that this plane was built to be a cheap as possible with only cursory regard to safety.
Working as a process development engineer, I can't tell you how many times I've run into a problem in high volume that didn't show it's head in testing. There are only so many variables you can test, especially if you have constraints to your sample size. From my experience major failures are never a single variable, but rather, an interaction between different variables that don't show statistical significance until you get a big enough sample.
15 years ago I worked putting together battery packs for small aircraft, and they were quite complicated, including heater elements and management electronics. I can only imagine how complex the systems are for something as large as a 787. The problem may not be with the actual battery, but the system which regulates the power.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
As everyone should know, modern airliners are pressurized. Now it is generally considered a BAD idea if it was to depressurize in midflight by say a window or door blowing out. How do you make it hard for this to happen? Well, you make the door open to the INSIDE, so that when locked and the airplane is under pressure, the pressure will press the door INTO the frame, making it impossible to blow out. This is why airline doors open INTO the aircraft and NOT out.
Basic stuff right? Only a company with no care for safety would change it.
Well boeing did it, so they could shove more cargo in it.
But surely then they would build the door really really well and have it tested really really well?
no... they did not and a LOT of people died when the door inenvitably did blow out and brought down the airplane.
Boeing has ALWAYS taken shortcuts and never given a shit about the risk and the FAA has always let them get away with it. Read up on the cargo door, it took a second incident for Boeing to be told to fix it BUT it was allowed to keep the outside opening door despite it being an obvious weak area.
You have to remember that in airliners, the interests are so gigantic that there is gigantic pressure on the engineers to find shortcuts and for those who are charged to oversee safety to look away so that their nations industry isn't hampered.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2013/01/17/donald-trump-buys-shares-of-boeing-a-great-company/
The difference is, there's no fatalities here. Plus, this is a pretty fast "recall", as these things go, and you can bet we're going to see revised designs in future.
Sent from my CR-48
The late 60's Honda 305 "Dream" was an aspirational motorcycle (well, I wanted one anyway!) but was called "The Nightmare" by owners. Pressed-steel frame, about an inch and a half of leading-link suspension travel. It was a better name than Benley, though (the name of their smaller displacement twins).
Off-topic memory from then: Sochiro Honda was asked by an interviewer if there was any truth to the rumor that Hondas were made with recycled beer cans. "No," he replied, "They're made from recycled B-29's."
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Except that Boeing ran into problems with the batteries before production. I've got exactly zero idea how accurate this piece is, but it's an interesting (if rambling) read:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/01/17/qantas-hopes-for-a-fast-dreamliner-fix-are-fading/?wpmp_switcher=mobile
The revolution will be mocked
For a more stable unit. I understand that it'll add about 20 pounds. Just carry one less piece of luggage, and you can use the heavier batteries. I'm not quite sure what these batteries are for... Does this aircraft not have an APU?
I find that difficult to believe, so I can only assume these batteries are for some piece of redundancy, like continuing to power the black boxes in case of total power failure. Sounds like a simple and fairly inexpensive replacement (as opposed to installing an all new wiring harness, for example).
All I want to know about the new plane -- it's made of composite, so does speed tape still stick to this thing?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
One of the more troubling things, in my opinion.. related to this were the actions of USA Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood..
Only hours before the FAA issued its order [to ground the 787], Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood reiterated to reporters that he considers the plane safe and wouldnâ(TM)t hesitate to fly one. LaHood and FAA Administrator Michael Huerta unequivocally declared the plane safe at a news conference last week even while they ordered a safety review of the aircraft.
So, in this guys opinion.. knowing what we all know.. he tells everyone is safe and he wouldnt hesitate to fly one?!
On Jan. 7, it took firefighters 40 minutes to put out a blaze centered in an auxiliary power unit of a Japan Airlines 787 ..that doesnt sound like a perfectly save thing to me!
I have to wonder why he sees the need to save face. I know Boeing plays a big part in our economy and that the govt needs to keep them appearing as a great company.....but shouldnt his job to be anything but misdirecting attention from the possible dangers here?!
Why isnt he running the feet of boeing and the FAA over the coals instead of acting like the
local cop saying NOTHING TO SEE HERE?!
(source: http://business.time.com/2013/01/17/lithium-batteries-central-to-boeings-787-woes/ )
More likely Boeing didn't test the batteries in the way people are now using them in the real world. Any engineer can tell you that it is nearly impossible to predict all the things, even the common things people will do with your new product before it is released.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
When they got into trouble, they could eject the warp core.
Have gnu, will travel.
From now on, travelers will have to leave anything that uses a battery at home. And you now need to remove your underwear as well as your shoes. Especially for attractive female passengers.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I don't know why there is an assumption that Boeing only has to solve their battery problems. The FAA has had severe concerns about the fuel lines in the plane and one even leaked forty odd litres of fuel. This aircraft has severe, and I mean severe, issues especially after the thing being delayed for three years while they supposedly sorted it all out. These are not just teething issues that occur once the plane gets flown and they go away with some improvements. Multiple problems like this plane is having point to a fundamental flaw with the design philosophy or manufacture, and probably both. If the plane ever gets back in the air ever more problems will be discovered and the odds are some will be fatal.
I would never fly on this aircraft. Its die is cast. Boeing bet the future of their company on this aircraft and they tried to do it on the cheap. It will probably cost them their existance.
This plane is not safe by any stretch of the imagination no matter what the FAA or anyone else says. Never listen to what people say, look at what they do.
The difference is, there's no fatalities here.
Yet.
Plus, this is a pretty fast "recall", as these things go, and you can bet we're going to see revised designs in future.
There has been a fast recall simply because the problems have been so obvious and public. Given the nature of this plane's development, and that it's been delayed for three years, just how many revisions are we going to have to see? The plane is simply fundamentally flawed.
It's only to be expected that some problems are going to arise in these new designs, and we should be relieved that when it does safety comes first.
If they are isolated problems yes. The problem is this plane has had issues that have cropped out of the woodwork for years, and they keep coming. Given its miniscule amount of flying time it's really quite worrying how many problems are yet to be found.
Well, judging from the project data sheet for Yuasa batteries (guessing the front and rear ones are similar) the LPV 10 and 65 http://www.s399157097.onlinehome.us/SpecSheets/LVP10-65.pdf, and MSDS of http://www.gsyuasa-lp.com/download/file/fid/112 use a organic solvent (mixture of alkylcarbonate solvents). (like ethylene carbonate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_carbonate) and that stuff should be solid at room temperature. I wonder how it leaked through the bottom of the battery compartment of the Japan 787? The info does suggest it will burn if you get it hot enough.
This plane may be perfectly fine and just having teething problems as Boeing says, but it's made me wary and perhaps even angry since before it launched because the 787 was winning awards and accolades for being revolutionary and new and blah blah blah well before it had taken even a taxi test.
My feeling it, let the model prove itself first and then worry about awards. The 747 has proven itself. The 737. Even the 757 and 767 although nobody much cares about those two dullards. But let the 787 EARN its place and prove it is the real deal and then paste on the praise.
They didn't do that. They went 150% hype and probably bragged a lot when they should have been humble and wow what a surprise everybody notices when the hype-machine has problems that might otherwise go without much notice.
In other words, they hyped the hell out of it and golly if they didn't get hype for the errors and issues too. Sometimes it's better to stay out of the spotlight, but that tends to be easier to do when the whole company isn't riding on ONE model. Geez, Boeing.
To be fair, the same hype crap happens at the Detroit car show where they award "Car of the year" to a new model that hasn't actually gone on sale yet, hasn't proved it's something people want to buy or is reliable or even notable in any actual real-world way. I think the Volt got the award one such year. And wow was THAT a hot seller! Just flying off the shelves! Or not. It may make for nice headlines but it means jack shit when the vehicle has never sold copy-one to anybody.
Sig for hire.
Any landing you can walk awa -oh, never mind.
I always think of that crash as the "Ooooh nooo! Ooooh nooo!" crash thanks to the video. Unhappy ending, that one.
Sig for hire.
This whole situation is incredibly bad news for Boeing, and incredibly good news for Airbus.
We've been building power plants for over 100 years now... yet they still, occassionally, catch on fire.
We've been building cars for over 200 years now... yet they still, occassionally, catch on fire.
We've been building houses for over 10,000 years now... yet they still, occassionally, catch on fire.
We've been making clothes for over 170,000 years now... yet they still, occassionally, catch on fire.
My god! We're doomed!
Yet? The aircraft are grounded, and they will be until they're certain the problem won't reappear.
And why, exactly, is the plane "fundamentally flawed"? The experimental nature of the aircraft mainly involves the composite nature of the materials and the new avionics- nothing related to why these planes were grounded. I've heard some talk of delamination of the composites, but if that were a serious issue, then the aircraft would have been grounded for that reason instead of battery fires.
Sent from my CR-48
It's obvious you've got a rose-tinted view of aircraft design - the 737, for example, which is the most successful commercial jet of all time, had a rudder defect that caused several fatal crashes
Errrr, no. We're talking about multiple seemingly unrelated problems with the 787. We aren't talking about isolated parts here, but nice try.
Yet? The aircraft are grounded, and they will be until they're certain the problem won't reappear.
The FAA quite clearly wanted this plane in the air, and it's only been the extremely obvious nature of the problems that has grounded the plane.
And why, exactly, is the plane "fundamentally flawed"? The experimental nature of the aircraft
It's not an experiment any more.
mainly involves the composite nature of the materials and the new avionics- nothing related to why these planes were grounded. I've heard some talk of delamination of the composites, but if that were a serious issue, then the aircraft would have been grounded for that reason instead of battery fires.
Those issues have probably yet to surface. They are clearly trying to curt corners to not only save cost but save weight. I suspect the carbon composite build of the plane did not give them the fuel savings that would make the plane anywhere near compelling.
And it seems they did it again. Everyone knows these batteries are risky but to save a bit of weight, Boeing went for them regardless AND just a tiny bit into production, it becomes clear they did NOT engineer it correctly. Or test it for that matter. This ain't software "engineering" in real world engineering you either are sure, or you don't do it. It is the same logic that blew up the shuttle managers overriding engineers.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You're getting the type of govt mixed up with the type of head of state.
Regardless of it's meaning in the past, today "Republic" is just a term for nations that don't have a monarch as head of state, while "democracy" is a reference to a type of govt, they are not mutually exclusive. Afterall have you ever heard of anyone describing the UK, Canada & Australia as republics?
I thought it was the DC-10 that had the door problem
The FAA quite clearly wanted this plane in the air
What does this mean? They clearly wanted it in the air? The FAA wants every aircraft in the air, as long as they can be sure that they're safe. They're not so sure about the Dreamliner anymore, so they're going back and making sure it's safe. That's what the FAA does.
I suspect the carbon composite build of the plane did not give them the fuel savings that would make the plane anywhere near compelling.
And now we've dove headfirst into rampant speculation. These airliners bought the 787, whose main remarkable feature was the composite interior that reduced weight and increased efficiency. If it didn't do that, why would they have bought it?
Sent from my CR-48