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.

29 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. Batteries by hawguy · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Batteries by alexander_686 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I know you are trying to be funny, but you are just showing that you are ignorant racist. Try not to be both at the same time. The batteries are Japanese.

      Young Doc: No wonder this circuit failed. It says "Made in Japan".
      Marty McFly: What do you mean, Doc? All the best stuff is made in Japan.
      Young Doc: Unbelievable.

    2. Re:Batteries by Alex+Zepeda · · Score: 5, Informative

      How does this get modded up? The batteries are Japanese (Yuasa) in origin, sourced by a French company (Alcatel/Thales).

      --
      The revolution will be mocked
    3. Re:Batteries by hawguy · · Score: 4, Funny

      How does this get modded up? The batteries are Japanese (Yuasa) in origin, sourced by a French company (Alcatel/Thales).

      But they still bought them on eBay, right?

    4. Re:Batteries by rtfa-troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know you are trying to be funny, but you are just showing that you are ignorant racist.

      Ignorant yes; racist we don't have much evidence for. Nobody makes jokes about cheap Taiwanese batteries even though Taiwan is largely ethnically Chinese. By the time Japan had recovered to the level that China is at today it already had a reputation for quality. The reason is simple. Taiwan is a democracy with proper freedom of speech and so the quality of things made there has gone up massively. Japan mostly the same. If someone tried things like they get away with in China then someone would speak up. Things like the crap that goes on in China - deadly chemicals in baby milk - failing to buy properly made signalling equipment from Siemens to save a few euros and then trying to bury a train full of dead people - would never go on if Chinese people in China had control of their own destiny instead of a bunch of party plutocrats.

      The racists are the people who say things like "democracy isn't suitable for China".

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    5. Re:Batteries by icebike · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem isn't even conclusively in the batteries themselves. It may be the chargers used, the thermal cutoff, or simply overloading.

      Some reports in the press suggest that the batteries are being recharged way too fast:

      An inspection of the All Nippon Airways 787 that made an emergency landing in western Japan found that electrolytes, a flammable battery fluid, had leaked from the plane's main lithium-ion battery. Investigators found burn marks around the damage. ... The two incidents resulted in the release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage and smoke, the FAA confirmed. The release of battery fluid is especially concerning, safety experts said.

      Once the electrolyte (which includes the lithium) catches fire it is very hard to put out. Boeing, knowing this provided special containment for these batteries, which has kept the fires from doing much besides destroying the battery (so far). However the risks are very real that this will be insufficient.

      Large size Lithium batteries (over 8 to 25 grams of lithium) are not even allowed on aircraft as baggage or carry on, due to the propensity to burn when shorted or punctured, but some how Boeing talked the FAA into certifying this plane with these batteries to save a weight. Bad enough that these batteries are prone to catch fire when shorted, but Lithium fires are almost impossible to put out with the fire suppression systems found on planes (page 9). How Boeing talked the FAA into allowing this on the plane (in multiple locations) is beyond me.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:Batteries by Dinghy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How Boeing talked the FAA into allowing this on the plane (in multiple locations) is beyond me.

      $$$$$

    7. Re:Batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      So if Boeing would put snakes on a plane, would those be OEM snakes?

    8. Re:Batteries by Roman+Coder · · Score: 5, Funny

      They'd be mother-fucking OEM snakes on the mother-fucking OEM plane.

      --
      "The future can only affect the present if there is room to write its influence off as a mistake." - Yakir Aharonov
    9. Re:Batteries by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Informative

      The US was set up as a non-democratic republic, with voting.

      The US was not set up as "a non-democratic republic, with voting". It was set up as a system which is both a representative democracy and a federal republic.

  2. More than just a battery issue... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:More than just a battery issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.nycaviation.com/2013/01/ntsb-shows-off-burnt-boeing-787-battery/

  3. share movement causality questionable by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:share movement causality questionable by anss123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I had the same thought. Airliners aren't suddenly going to order A350s. They know the 787 problem will be worked out and new purchases are done years in advanced.

    2. Re:share movement causality questionable by Some+Bitch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      the 737 and lots of other planes have been grounded in the past. these are complex machines and its not a big deal to have initial problems

      The last time the FAA grounded an entire commercial airframe was the DC10 in 1979, it is a very big deal. That said, I have no doubt Boeing will sort the problems and normal service will be resumed shortly.

    3. Re:share movement causality questionable by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Boeing 737 Classic series (737-300, -4-00 and -500) was grounded for a period of time in 1989 after the Kegworth crash - no, its not an "entire commercial airframe", because it didn't cover the earlier 737-100 and -200, but the airframes are so different that it could be considered such.

    4. Re:share movement causality questionable by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's a bit different. Even then, the DC-10 was very, very popular, and the method of grounding was very different. For the DC-10, they yanked the type certificate- it effectively became illegal to fly that aircraft. For the 787, it's a new aircraft, fairly experimental, and as for the grounding, it's an AD temporarily halting operations. Not quite as severe as revoking the type cert.

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
  4. Boeing Battery pic by Crash+McBang · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Boeing Battery pic by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Informative

      It does indeed *look* bad, until you know what you should be looking for - the exterior of the box is largely unburned, and the strap is intact with no signs of burning, so the box did its job in containing the fire. The lid was removed by the fire personnel, using a tool which caused the dent in the left hand side, and the box was thrown from the aircraft.

      The charring on the front of the box was caused by the connecting mechanism on the front arcing, and not the main fire itself.

      So all in all, yes it looks bad, but in actuality the box did its job!

  5. missteps by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Plane power, Li-ion, Colbolt Oxide batteries by colfer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. Millions of dollars, no wonder! by dstyle5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

  8. Safe Batteries by bobcat7677 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Safe Batteries by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting

      None of this is "silly." 18 pounds of additional weight requires an additional gallon of fuel for every 40 hours of flight, perhaps 2,500 gallons of fuel over the lifetime of the aircraft. This would cost the plane's owner $12,500 in additional fuel costs (at a rate of $5.00 per gallon for jet-A.) If Boeing sells 1,000 planes, that's over a million dollars in extra fuel costs to their customers.

      Would I spend $1,000,000 to prevent a fire on an aircraft? Absolutely. Would I spend that $1,000,000 if I believed the planes were safe with the batteries that the battery engineering firm signed off on? Probably not.

      From a story in one of the above comments, a subcontractor's engineer working on the battery assembly was claiming it was unsafe and that his supervisor was pressuring him to sign off on the battery despite his concerns; when he failed to do so he was fired. We don't know if any of that information made it back to Boeing, but if it had, they probably would not have accepted the batteries from the supplier without further review.

      --
      John
  9. Re:Here's my question: by servognome · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  10. It is standard for Boeing by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:It is standard for Boeing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Flight number: United Airlines Flight 811
      Models: Tyra, Giselle, Chanel Iman

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811

    2. Re:It is standard for Boeing by segedunum · · Score: 4, Informative
    3. Re:It is standard for Boeing by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      AirBus A330 and A380 both have outward opening doors. CRJ700 does too. From pictures I've seen, it looks like at least some MD-80, DC-8 and DC-10 did well.

      Apparently it's not that stupid of an idea to change it.