Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 01-23-2013, 04:27 PM   #61
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
There was an article from one of the major newspapers that was attached to our in-house e-newspaper yesterday about how the 787 battery issue is making people look at ALL the users of lithium batteries now.

There is a good chance, the article said, that the electric car industry and the shipping industry will undergo the same scruitiny that is currently going on with Yuasa, Boeing, and our electrical suppliers.

Several fires in electric cars are now being viewed and reinvestigated with much more suspicion than they were originally, and the article implied that until the whole issue is resolved, it may put the electric car industry in jeopardy.

Airbus, too, was quoted in the article that they expect their A350 will now get a very serious looking at which they expect will force (more) delays in that program (the A350 uses lithium batteries, too). The same holds true for the shipping industry, as witness the tug incident described by Rick B in an earlier post.

So it seems the 787 may simply have been the catalyst that has woken everyone up to the notion that the lithium battery, while providing all sorts of benefits, is not quite the mature technology everyone was thinking that it was.

In the long run, this will prove to be a good thing as it will make the technology more viable and safer. But in the meantime, it's looking like there will be a fair amount of disruption and not just in the air transportation industry.
__________________
Advertisement

Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 06:17 PM   #62
Guru
 
BruceK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,573
Let`s not be too unkind to the 787. Early issues pale into relative insignificance compared to(remembering best I can) the British Comet losing either doors or windows midflight, the DC10 fuselage buckling onto control lines making them inoperative, a design defect in early 747s, emerging late,where fuel tank and electrical wiring interaction downed a plane over NYC (where we were at the time, waking to pics of wreckage in the water), and more recently, pitot tube issues on A330s.
Let`s hope it gets fixed and delivery resumes, saving Qantas maintaining aging 747s.
__________________

__________________
BruceK
Island Gypsy 36 Europa "Doriana"
Sydney Australia
BruceK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 06:34 PM   #63
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
So it seems the 787 may simply have been the catalyst that has woken everyone up to the notion that the lithium battery, while providing all sorts of benefits, is not quite the mature technology everyone was thinking that it was. .
Not everyone was thinking it was a mature or better said a safe technology. Discussions about Li P vs Li C vs NiCd technology have been held for some years now. Li systems' propensity to light up has been a well known fact for those of us who have to make decisions about back up power supply for PLC based operating systems. On the ground we call it risk vs reward.
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 07:06 PM   #64
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
The first Comet's actually "exploded" due to fatigue cracks in the fuselage around the windows leading to catastrophic failure of the entire fuselage structure. It's why the windows on all commercial jets today have rounded corners.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 01:16 AM   #65
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,371
The FAA issued an Airworthiness Directive. Investors are clamoring for action. 787 buyers are lining up for compensation. Li proponents are running for the trees. I remain,

Clueless in Seattle
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 01:24 AM   #66
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
I remain,

Clueless in Seattle
Well, at least you've got a good grasp on that part.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 08:34 AM   #67
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,530
the DC10 fuselage buckling onto control lines making them inoperative,

It sure did AFTER the huge after cargo door was not secured by an untrained worker., when the aircraft was pressurized.

Sadly however the aircraft crashed because the French crew did not have understanding of the aircraft , no basic systems training.

Where did I hear again about the lack of training and flight skills on Air France?

The aircraft was perfectly flyable , with the auto pilot , not the std controls.

As bad weather approaches are flown by the AP with the pilots monitoring , they would have been familiar with this task.

Sadly their lack of knowledge flew another flyable aircraft into the ground.
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 12:06 PM   #68
JD
Guru
 
JD's Avatar
 
City: New Bern NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Stella Di Mare
Vessel Model: Mainship 34t
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceK View Post
a design defect in early 747s, emerging late,where fuel tank and electrical wiring interaction downed a plane over NYC (where we were at the time, waking to pics of wreckage in the water.
I'm under the impression that this was the same problem that the BUF's had. Not recognized until we lost a couple in the US after the conflict. The ones lost in Vietnam were blamed on missile strikes but there were no missiles fired at the ones lost in AZ. Seemed that the fuel tanks were allowed to run dry and the in tank fuel pumps caught fire. Thus removing the wing from the aircraft. New fuel management plans were put into play as on the 747. As I understand it the 747 was on a flight to Europe but didn't need the extra fuel so a center fuel tank was left empty. The pump was left on in that tank and the rest is history.

This is my understanding. If incorrect please correct me.
__________________
Vinny

M/V Stella Di Mare
New Bern NC
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 01:15 PM   #69
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,631
I am still skeptical about the cause of TWA 800 when 200+ witnesses saw something leave the surface of the Earth and go towards that aircraft. But that is another story. Because of it, we operate all B737NG aircraft under an AD that has us doing funny stuff(open crossfeed, turn off left pump when below 5000lbs) with the fuel pumps as the center tanks goes empty.

I am also skeptical as to the events that led to the A330 crash over the Atlantic. One interesting thing(and there are many) is that Airbus(Boeing may do this too) has a lower threshold as to when all the stall warning buzzers and bells stop going off. IOW, somewhere around 90kts(and below) the stall warning systems stop sounding the alarm. Of course when engineered, the engineers were likely thinking nobody in their right minds would need that stuff below 90kts...I mean who in their right minds would find themselves below 90kts in a 500,000lb airliner??? Well as it turns out, while that Airbus was traversing in and out of the "flying regime" that the airspeed indicatorS were indicating less than that value and ceasing to sound the alarm....making the pilots think they were flying again since they were already suspect of the airspeed....when in fact they were so not flying! So don't be so quick to judge.

The 787 will be fine regardless of what we think!!!.......the powers of capitalism will drive it too success.

Also, I agree with Sunchaser in that this is not exactly synonomous with Li batts for cars. We got gravity to deal with and hundreds of lives with each dose!
Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 01:45 PM   #70
Scraping Paint
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Vessel Model: CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post

Sadly however the aircraft crashed because the French crew did not have understanding of the aircraft , no basic systems training.

Where did I hear again about the lack of training and flight skills on Air France?

The aircraft was perfectly flyable , with the auto pilot , not the std controls.

Sadly their lack of knowledge flew another flyable aircraft into the ground.
Sadly, but oh so typically, the lack of knowledge is with the poster.

That Turkish airlines flight was crewed by Turks. They were too low to recover, although they managed to recover from a 20 degree dive to only 4 degrees before impact.

I think that a sudden loss of control while climbing through 8 or 9 thousand feet that created an uncommanded dive of 20 degrees culminatiing in a speed well over 400 knots is a handful for anyone ... the fact that they almost made it makes your interpretation a cruel libel.

I think they did damn fine job in the 30 seconds or so it took between the event and impact ... how well would you have done?

Sit down with a croissant and read the accident report Fred, the French are not responsible for everything that is wrong with your world.
RickB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 02:19 PM   #71
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,631
I agree with you Rick...although there is a bit of truths to FF's oversimplification of things. There are very few accidents where I cannot find myself in the same scenario....with hopefully a better outcome but who knows. Our goal is to learn and understand...and certainly not criticize. THE most important thing to happen to aviation safety in the past two decades is the fact that all facets of the industry now work together and share information....versus in the past...where we hid information from everyone and pointed fingers and laid blame. Aircraft accidents are extremely complex...and if I may say, for that reason, extremely interesting as it relates to human performance. With all that said and as it relates to the Air France A330 accident over the Atlantic, the FAA and our company does have a renewed interest in basic flying skill...ie stall recognition and recovery.

I will throw out another nugget in your direction, Rick. My career started in C152 doing stalls(and spins) and then 172s doing stalls...Piper Archers doing stalls....and slightly bigger aircraft doing stalls. You get the idea. I honestly have no clue what the history of that AIr France crew was. But I will say that the entire crew added together has less flight time than me alone...and I just now made Captain. Maybe they came up in the same manner that I did. Or maybe they came up in the "ab initio" type of training that you and I have discussed over the years. Does it even matter? I know these are all rhetorical questions that we really don't have the information to speculate. But again, an interesting little fact ref experience and different cultural ways of training airline pilots.

One thing I do wish is that we would train a little better on high altitude stalls in the simulator. High altitude stalls in a large jet are almost surreal in that half of the wing is flying and the other half isn't(luckily the ailerons are flying). If you stall at FL370 you most likely won't be flying until you are into the 20s. Our company has become much more vigilant as we are trying to maximize efficiency by flying "optimum" altitudes(as computed by the FMC) which in many cases is the same as max altitude. We have had numerous incidents where crews were unable to hold altitude once they were upset by turbulence and/or mountain wave. Anyway, high altitude stalls are something I do think we need to work on as an industry as in the past many decades, we have only taught stall recognition and recovery as we approach the stall...and not from a full stall. These are also done at lower altitudes which is completely different from high altitude. Please realize I am talking about the simulator here...not the actual aircraft.
Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 05:29 PM   #72
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
According to a statement from the FAA I heard on the news driving in the focus is now on the batteries themselves, both of which appear to have suffered massive internal shorts. In fact the airplanes' safeguards acted as designed to contain the situation.

Lithium batteries, I learned yesterday, have a characteristic in their electrolyte that results from the way they are manufactured. While everyone is aware of this characteristic, which can on very rare occasions trigger an internal short, no one has yet figured out how to eliminate it.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 07:39 PM   #73
KJ
El Capitan
 
KJ's Avatar
 
City: N Myrtle Beach, SC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Avalon
Vessel Model: Chung Hwa 46 LRC
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 896
Ah, progress. Ain't it grand! KJ
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	BOEING.jpg
Views:	37
Size:	129.0 KB
ID:	16082  
KJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 08:29 PM   #74
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
We've got some AMAZINGLY bright and very senior Engineers on special assignment right now to work on getting this fixed. I have every confidence they'll have an answer and a good fix in mind soon.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 12:08 AM   #75
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,371
Yes SomeSailor, "Hundreds of bright engineers" are working on the issues according to Boeing spokesman. The lady who heads up the NTSB has weighed in with contradictory statements regarding batteries and circuit design. She is fudging as to which agency is on first, FAA or NTSB regarding airworthiness of the 787.. Airbus says they are learning (and distancing themselves) from Boeing's current E design and Li battery reliance as the 350 gains unexpected sales momentum. The 787 will indeed get sorted out, but when and with what impacts to Boeing's leaders and business remains to be seen. I remain,

Clueless in Seattle
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 12:19 AM   #76
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
remain,

Clueless in Seattle
The understatement of the year. My dog can parrot the clueless media too. Your "information" about Airbus and their situation is about as far off the mark as it can be, by the way.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 12:42 AM   #77
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
Your "information" about Airbus and their situation is about as far off the mark as it can be, by the way.
Only if one disregards Airbus statements made today.
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 12:55 AM   #78
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Airbus has been "distancing" themselves from just about everything these days and they are masters at spinning bad news into good. Or at least into neutral news.

They are in some pretty big trouble with their A350 over issues that have nothing to do with batteries. They anticipate delays with their airplane that they feel will be not unlike what's happened with the 787. They also picked the wrong way to use composites on their plane, a design which has set them up to seriously miss their efficiency targets. And they know it, as do the airlines.

They made a similar mistake with the A380 when concerns about noise levels led them to design a wing which is far larger than it needs to be, which in turn seriously impedes the efficiency of the plane. It's why when passenger numbers drop the A380 is the first plane airlines that have them park.

Not to say there aren't teething problems with the 787, but Airbus is facing some rough water ahead, too. The big advantage they have is that they don't have to worry about their airplane programs' profitability.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 01:14 AM   #79
Guru
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Vessel Name: Anastasia III
Vessel Model: Krogen 42
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,716
Worldwide grounding = teething problems? Denial.
Keith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 01:24 AM   #80
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
Worldwide grounding = teething problems? Denial.
Another clueless person heard from. Stick to GoJo, Keith. There's no denying you know how that works.
__________________

Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012