The FAA Will Let Boeing's 787 Dreamliner Fly Again

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The FAA Will Let Boeing's 787 Dreamliner Fly Again

Posted by timothy on Friday April 19, 2013 @11:08PM from the but-you-must-haul-chuck-yeager-around dept.

derekmead writes "Having completed intense review of the aircraft's flight systems and functionality, component reliability, two weeks ago Boeing completed testing on the last item on its list, the plane's battery housing. The FAA on Friday approved the new system. That means the 787, which Boeing has continued to build while new battery solutions were developed, will now be able to resume regular flights as soon as workers are able to carry out an overhaul of the planes that need the upgrade. 'FAA approval clears the way for us and the airlines to begin the process of returning the 787 to flight with continued confidence in the safety and reliability of this game-changing new airplane,' Jim McNerney, CEO of Boeing, said in a news release announcing the approval."

32 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

it just can't fly as far by alen · 2013-04-20 00:00 · Score: 1, Interesting

the 787 can fly again, but it won't be allowed to fly the major international routes. only the ones where the flight path is always within an hour of a major airport
1. Re:it just can't fly as far by AliasMarlowe · 2013-04-20 00:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  the 787 can fly again, but it won't be allowed to fly the major international routes. only the ones where the flight path is always within an hour of a major airport
  TFA and the press release did not mention any ETOPS restriction, and the plane was previously certified for 180 minutes ETOPS (Boeing planned on increasing it further). Do you have a source for this?
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
2. Re:it just can't fly as far by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-20 00:10 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This is actually a very good point. What the above poster is referring to is the ETOPS rating (which is the time from the nearest airport assuming that an engine fails). The 787 was designed to maximize its ETOPS rating, with an attempt to get it up to 330 minutes. Given its 14,000 to - 15,000 km range, a 330 minutes ETOPS would allow it to fly directly to almost any destination (including over the poles). Anything that reduces the ETOPS rating will make the aircraft more inefficient for long distance flights.
  In any case, I'd assume that the fixed 787 will have at least a 180 minutes ETOPS rating which shouldn't cause too much pain (which is what it had before the battery problem occurred). If the FAA is being harsh, they may limit it to 120 minutes, which would particularly affect Pacific routes.
3. Re:it just can't fly as far by Richard_at_work · 2013-04-20 00:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Nope, it's been explicitly confirmed that the 787 has retained its ETOPs 180 certification.
4. Re:it just can't fly as far by ilguido · 2013-04-20 01:01 · Score: 2
  
  It was designed for a ETOPS 330.
5. Re:it just can't fly as far by Richard_at_work · 2013-04-20 01:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It was certainly designed for ETOPS 330, but it hadnt yet achieved certification for it - no aircraft infact has.
6. Re:it just can't fly as far by Ancil · 2013-04-20 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  The 777 has been certified for ETOPS 330 for several years. source
7. Re:it just can't fly as far by ilguido · 2013-04-20 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Sources recount a different story. It received a design approval for 330-min ETOPS, apparently it got no more.
8. Re:it just can't fly as far by Richard_at_work · 2013-04-20 02:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Type design approval is NOT certification - both the type and the operator needs to achieve certification to fly ETOPS 330. The 777 still has to achieve type certification for 330.
9. Re:it just can't fly as far by Richard_at_work · 2013-04-20 02:08 · Score: 2
  
  See my reply to the other guy - the maximum the 777 has achieved in ETOPS *certification* to date is 207.
10. Re:it just can't fly as far by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-20 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  That was for the engine, not the plane. Read your sources.
root cause hasn't been found by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-20 00:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's perhaps worth noting that the root cause of the two battery failures hasn't been found. So the idea is not to solve it, but to make it safe (safer) when it happens again.
1. Re:root cause hasn't been found by peragrin · 2013-04-20 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  The root cause was found. minor manufacturing defects in the battery. The rest is just in case a bad battery slips through quality control.
  You can plan for perfection but is usually wisest to plan on imperfection.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
2. Re:root cause hasn't been found by RandomFactor · 2013-04-20 00:59 · Score: 2
  
  "Before the planes can fly, they must be fitted with a "containment and venting" system for both lithium-ion batteries on the 787, the FAA said. That includes a stainless-steel enclosure to prevent heat, fumes or fire from spreading if a battery overheats in flight. Batteries and battery chargers must also be replaced with different components, the FAA said"
  I suspect replacing the batteries and chargers is the intended solution, with the enclosure and venting system being a 'just in case it happens again anyway...' bit of layered prevention.
  
  --
  --- Mercutio was right.
3. Re:root cause hasn't been found by fnj · 2013-04-20 01:10 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Let's have a dose of reality here. The root cause is PRESUMED to have been manufacturing defects. Nobody at Boeing or the FAA seems to have genuinely evaluated the likelihood that the lithium ion technology has BUILT-IN liability in the basic concept.
  The only real question here is whether the protective redesign is adequate to contain the inevitable battery failures which will come, without setting the plane on fire or releasing poisonous fumes into the cabin.
4. Re:root cause hasn't been found by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-20 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  How can anyone buy into this as a solution? The obvious fix, using a battery that was less likely to overheat,
  may seem very expensive to implement but it would be foolish to bet that the problem will never recur.
5. Re:root cause hasn't been found by AmiMoJo · 2013-04-20 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  I can't see airlines being okay with occasional fires, even if the FAA is.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
6. Re:root cause hasn't been found by CohibaVancouver · 2013-04-20 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  "Before the planes can fly, they must be fitted with a "containment and venting" system
  Scotty, eject the core!
7. Re:root cause hasn't been found by Richard_at_work · 2013-04-20 02:12 · Score: 2
  
  They seem to be fine with engine blade off events, engine fires and other engine related issues, so LNG as they are all properly contained - so no particular reason they wouldn't be fine with other components having the same restrictions.
8. Re:root cause hasn't been found by PPH · 2013-04-20 02:51 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  No. This battery (the GS Yuasa cells) don't suffer from these sorts of failures in other applications. They are not a new product, built only for Boeing. So, unless we are to believe that GS Yuasa has been producing the units shipped to Thales from a special, substandard manufacturing line, this is not the cause.
  The fireproof battery box solution solves one of two problems: It prevents an 'eventful' battery failure from propagating to other aircraft systems and components. It does not demonstrate the battery system reliability that Boeing had initially assumed in their certification analysis. If the demonstrated reliability to date is not sufficient for ETOPS operation, Boeing still has some homework to do. Failing to understand the nature of the faults means that Boeing cannot, with any certainty, claim to have reset the reliability numbers back to the original ones provided by certification analysis.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
9. Re:root cause hasn't been found by Martin+Blank · 2013-04-20 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  Expensive isn't the word for it. Changing the battery technology would require months of re-engineering work and months more of certification, possibly grounding the plane for a year, and that doesn't factor in the performance loss from the extra weight. The result could cripple Boeing, possibly fatally, to implement a solution that probably is not required.
  They performed a great deal of testing on the new architecture including setting off a propane explosion. The containment system held and vented properly. The FAA is satisfied with the solution, and they're the ones who are going to get blamed if it fails catastrophically. It's good enough for me. You're welcome to check the planes in use on your flights and avoid the 787.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
10. Re:root cause hasn't been found by PPH · 2013-04-20 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody at Boeing or the FAA seems to have genuinely evaluated the likelihood that the lithium ion technology has BUILT-IN liability in the basic concept.
  Because that would take time to re-certify the entire electrical system. And it would put Boeing in a position of having to admit, "We were wrong." That, IMO, is the major issue. Once Boeing is wrong once, then all subsequent work they do could be second guessed.
  The issue of fire containment isn't as difficult to demonstrate. We know the total energy stored in the battery. We assume it is converted to heat within some reasonably short time period. Someone whips out a slide rule and figures how much of that heat is conducted through the box versus expelled as hot gas outside the airplane.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
11. Re:root cause hasn't been found by Lincolnshire+Poacher · 2013-04-20 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  The FAA is satisfied with the solution, and they're the ones who are going to get blamed if it fails catastrophically
  Which counts for absolutely nothing. It's not as if individuals in the FAA will go to prison for negligence. There is no sanction for the FAA simply signing something off ( after all, they certified the original battery installation ).
  In the backward Soviet Union, a new airliner type would be operated on domestic cargo and mail flights for 12 to 18 months before being assessed for carriage of fare-paying passengers. We didn't adopt that practice in the west because it was more important for the bottom line to certificate aircraft with fatal design flaws ( e.g. DC-10's cargo hatches ) and tidy-up afterwards.
12. Re:root cause hasn't been found by tlhIngan · 2013-04-22 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Expensive isn't the word for it. Changing the battery technology would require months of re-engineering work and months more of certification, possibly grounding the plane for a year, and that doesn't factor in the performance loss from the extra weight. The result could cripple Boeing, possibly fatally, to implement a solution that probably is not required.
  And most likely, not work at all.
  The new airplanes use a lot of electricity (the generators on the 787 generate a total of 1.5MW of power - about 5 times what an older airliner had). These things power all the usual - avionics, lights, the little power plugs by the seats, etc. And they power some new things as well - including deice/anti-ice equipment (using electrical pumps and heaters saves a lot of weight in not having to route engine bleed air everywhere with associated pneumatic valves and all that).
  The problem with this is of course, it means the critical load is a lot higher, so they have to store a LOT more power for emergencies. Hence using lithium-ion batteries.
  It's also something the new Airbuses are going to be using as well - the A350 (the competitor to the 787) is supposed to use similar batteries.
Plain truth by allypally · 2013-04-20 01:04 · Score: 3, Funny

Oh, when will the world learn that battery state of the art is simply inadequate for mobile devices such as iPhones and Dreamliners?
Stick to tethered devices that draw mains power through cords - such as xboxes and trains - and all will run much more smoothly.
1. Re:Plain truth by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-20 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  This is an American vehicle. It badly needs a sophisticated component nobody actually understands properly. Otherwise, it would not be "high tech" enough for the dumb fucks with lots of money in places such as Saudi-Tyrannistan (where women still cannot drive cars and where BinLaden came from), Dubai and so on.
Yuasa deny the battery defect by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-20 01:43 · Score: 1

Yuasa (the Japanese battery maker) blame the charging regime. They wanted the secondary regulator, Boeing disagrees.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/28/us-boeing-787-report-idUSBRE91Q1CU20130228
Your laptop battery has a regulator in it, it's a smart battery, the chip tracks the coulombs in and out of the battery and adjusts the charge voltage as the battery ages. It also has a thermocouple on it to check the temperature during charging, to stop it overheating. If the battery has too many metal spikes in it (the metal deposit as spikes that over time internally short the battery), then the battery is shut off. Yes the battery has failed then, and technically you can call it a battery failure, but that's what the shut off is for. It's a known failure mode with a graceful shut off when it happens.
Boeing are clearly wrong here if they omit that controller, laptop batteries had many incidents of fires, it was tamed by software, THIS PROBLEM IS KNOWN!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081400881.html
Re:TAILS OS: Help secure this OS with a side proje by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-20 08:31 · Score: 0

Why don't you simply build TOR from source and be done with it for your own use ??