Slashdot Mirror
The FAA Will Let Boeing's 787 Dreamliner Fly Again
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."
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.
Nope, it's been explicitly confirmed that the 787 has retained its ETOPs 180 certification.
It was certainly designed for ETOPS 330, but it hadnt yet achieved certification for it - no aircraft infact has.
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.
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.