FAA grounds 787

In the wake of 2 Japanese airlines voluntarily grounding theirs and the fact that their are only 6 operating in the USA(All by UAL), it sounds like it was an easy decision. They used the term "Temporarily grounding"....whatever that means.

A few years ago we were having a spirited debate on TF regarding the 787. One of the issues that came up was regarding an electrical panel fire which delayed the introdcution of the 787 for a period of time. Any connection between that early electric fire incident and the current? I am sure the FAA has the same question.

The eletrical fire during testing had nothing to do with the design or function of the plane's electrical system. The culprit turned out to be metal drill and fabrication shavings that were not cleaned out of the electrical cabinet after its manufacture by the company that makes it (not Boeing). This FOD eventually found its way into a positon to cause a short and the resulting fire.

According to the information released to date the current issue apparently has to do with the lithium batteries that are used in the plane. What the problem is and why it has surfaced now after so long remains to be seen.

For anyone interested there is a pretty good article in today's Seattle Times related to the 787 situation about lithium batteries and why they are superior as batteries but pose some challenges in design and manufacturing.

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020149254_787batteryexplainerxml.html

Boeing isn't the only Seattle institution with Li battery problems. It is tough working on the frontiers of technology.

Battery-related fire damages famed hybrid tug, puts it out of service - Professional Mariner - December/January 2013

MY vote is for Ni Cads , as plan B.

When ever the LI tech becomes useable , the switch back could save a few pounds.

Ni Cads (enough of them ) have plenty of juice , we used to start the engines on the Caravelle with no APU , just the batts!

The best part was IF the engine was started from ground power , the charged batts were strong enough to power many requirements for longer than many hops.

Dual generator failure in flight ,,,, What me worry?

FF--- Comparing the electrical requirements of a Jurrasic era Caravelle with the requirements on today's commercial jets is laughable. You would not believe the amount of power today's planes require, particularly the 787 which is for all practical purposes, an all-electric airplane. Even the brakes are electric.

And here's one for you--- what do you think is the single most complex, heavy (not counting the engines), power-hungry, and trouble-prone system on a modern commercial jetliner?

Greetings,
Mr Marin. "what do you think is the single most complex, heavy (not counting the engines), power-hungry, and trouble-prone system on a modern commercial jetliner?" Um, overweight flight attendants?

Marin said:

And here's one for you--- what do you think is the single most complex, heavy (not counting the engines), power-hungry, and trouble-prone system on a modern commercial jetliner?

Click to expand...

The feeding and comfort of passengers, and the waste they produce.

MurrayM said:

The feeding and comfort of passengers, and the waste they produce.

Click to expand...

No. I'm not talking about an activity, I mean an actual system--- wires, pipes, ducts, computers, etc. type of system. A system designed to do a specific thing. Which one is the most complex on a modern jetliner?

Greetings,
Mr. Marin. Am I perceiving a tone that suggests to me that this system is somewhat inane? Hmmm....Entertainment system? Air circulation system?

RTF--- The first half of your guess is correct. I've been told by our flightline guys that the IFE system on a plane like the 777 many times surpasses in complexity any other system on the plane. And it's heavy, too, what with all the wiring, control boxes for each seat, etc., etc., etc.

The components aren't as clunky as they were just a few years ago and digital technology is reducing the component count, but it is still staggeringly complex. And it can be very troublesome and frustrating to fix, too.

We recently flew from Dubai to Seattle on Emirates, a 777-200LR, our newest 777 model. Emirate's IFE system has over 1,000 movies, as many TV shows, documentaries, and news selections, tons of interactive games, dozens of music channels, a duty-free shopping channel, plus phone and other kinds of connectivity with the associated credit card payment capability. All of it on-demand and available at every seat on the plane.

It makes the plane's flight control system look like two tin cans and a string in terms of complexity.

With regards to the topic of this thread it was in the paper yesterday that the two Yuasa lithium batteries involved in the 787 incidents were just 30 numbers apart in serial number. While this on its own answers nothing it does give some weight to the possibility that the cause of the problem may have originated in the manufacture of the batteries themselves.

Marin, Did they ground the Dream Lifters as well?

HopCar said:

Marin, Did they ground the Dream Lifters as well?

Click to expand...

The Dreamlifters are ancient 747s cut up to be what they are. Their batteries are 1980s technology. Production of the 787 has not been shut down.

Marin, I guess I'm confused. Did they make some 787 cargo planes with a big oversized cabin? Or maybe you told me they used the Dream Lifter to move some 787 parts around.
I know we talked about this before but I can't remember what was said. Damn that CRS!

HopCar said:

Marin, I guess I'm confused. Did they make some 787 cargo planes with a big oversized cabin? Or maybe you told me they used the Dream Lifter to move some 787 parts around.
I know we talked about this before but I can't remember what was said. Damn that CRS!

Click to expand...

The Dreamlifters are old 747-400s that were sawed up at Evergreen in Taiwan and a huge bubble body installed where the passenger cabin used to be. The aft fuselage was cut and hinged and swings open for loading and unloading.

There are currently four Dreamlifters (or maybe five by now) that are used to fly the individual fuselage sections from their manufactures in Japan, Italy, and Wichita, first to Charleston where they are joined along with the two fuselage sections that are manufactured in Charleston into major fuselage sections and then these are flown to Everett for final assembly. The major fuselage sections that will be final assembled into a completed airplane in Charleston simply stay there.

The Dreamlifters also fly the completed wing pairs from their manufacturing plant in Japan to the final assembly lines in Everett and Charleston.

Only the forward section of the Dreamlifter is pressurized.

That's the plane I was thinking of. I've seen them at MIA a couple of times.

They are operated by Atlas Air and I believe they have a base in Miami. So the Dreamlifters may go there periodically for maintenance and whatnot.

I've been told by our flightline guys that the IFE system on a plane like the 777 many times surpasses in complexity any other system on the plane. And it's heavy, too, what with all the wiring, control boxes for each seat, etc., etc., etc.

Sure was easier going back and fixing the broken film on the DC 8 in flight movie entertainment system.

Sounds like the batteries are monsters just to start the APU.

OF course the APU is probably bigger than the engine on the old Caravelle.

LI batt require a hugely complex charging system , or a fire can result.

Sounds like both Chevvy DOLT and big B need a plan B.

I just read in the WSJ that there are only 2 Lion batteries on the 787 weighing a total of 112 lbs vs about 170lbs for the older Nicads. Seems like a lot of risk/expense to save just 60lbs or so, equal to one carry on!! Was previously under the wrong impression that batteries and amp-hrs were much more substantial component. To the uninformed mind this seems like a "no brainer"!!!

Chrisjs said:

To the uninformed mind this seems like a "no brainer"!!!

Click to expand...

When you calculate the cost of lifting and moving that extra 60 pounds over the lifespan of the aircraft you will find it amounts to a very substantial amount of cash.

I agree in principle but in practice the cost of what they are going through in terms of lost air time and bad publicity would suggest that staying with proven technology might have been the best bet. It does not appear that Lions are ready for prime time in life/death applications.

It's all about the weight. The weight of an LRU is a huge factor in whether or not it buys it's way onto an airplane.

There are a very guarded set of numbers out there that are the cost per pound per hour of revenue flight, by model. They are in the double digits across the board.

There are two very remarkable things you can do for a customer:

Make their plane more efficient and/or Make their plane lighter.

60 pounds is hundreds of millions of dollars over the service life of an aircraft

Also; Every extra pound lifted for free in revenue flight, is one you can't charge for elsewhere (freight).

Even the cost of paint weight is figured into our designs.

Sixty pounds of battery is sixty pounds less revenue cargo you can carry. Don't think that the belly of a commercial jet is loaded up with luggage. Even a 737 has room for a lot of revenue freight on a typical flight. Luggage doesn't take up much space.

On larger planes like 777s, 787s, A330s etc, I wouldn't be surprised if the revenue freight in the holds makes more money for the airline than the passengers up above. Emirates and British Airways, to name two we have worked with on projects, operate massive-- and very profitable-- worldwide cargo operations based on their passenger fleets.

A typical Emirates 777 will have perhaps two containers of luggage down below. Everything else is containerized or palletized revenue freight. We filmed one 777 passenger flight turnaround in Dubai in which most of the hold of the plane was filled with palletized Ferraris.

Emirates built such a successful cargo operation using their passenger fleet that they have begun adding 777 freighters.

As SomeSailor said, a sixty pound weight savings that becomes a sixty pound payload increase on every flight adds up to a huge income boost for the operator over the years they have the plane.

Most people complain about having to pay $35 for an additional bag, but imagine how many overnight parcels they can haul for any of the freight companies. They are all chock full of freight whenever possible. The real money isn't isn't in passenger revenue.

The real benefit of lithium batteries comes in when you start talking about their ability to produce huge amounts of current on short order.

Thread hijack alert.

Regarding aircraft weight issues, would it not be logical to price tickets on a passenger weight scale.

How about allowing the passenger a given weight allowance that includes themselves and their luggage, with an excess paid on top if they exceed that weight. Might be a little non PC though.

Andy G said:

Thread hijack alert.

Regarding aircraft weight issues, would it not be logical to price tickets on a passenger weight scale.

How about allowing the passenger a given weight allowance that includes themselves and their luggage, with an excess paid on top if they exceed that weight. Might be a little non PC though.

Click to expand...

It would be a nightmare logistically. We are still trying to figure out the best and most efficient way to board an aircraft(UAL is changing their procedure yet again). We've been "boarding aircraft" for almost a century...and still fine tuning!!!!!!!

Also, on every single flight plan operated by Legacy Continental(which will be the surviving flight plan software), there is a line that gives you the figure for how much fuel is burned per 1000lbs of weight. On a full 767-400 it is close to 200lbs of fuel for each 1000lbs. I think it was usually around 190lbs. On a 737 it is in the low 100s....somewhere around 110-120lbs of fuel per 1000lbs. So your 60lb bag may cost almost 2 gallons of fuel per hour.

Just FYI...a carry on bag weighs NOTHING...NADA....0lbs. It is included in the weight of the passenger which I think now is 190lbs(it differs by 5lbs from summer to winter). Every checked bag is 25lbs and if it is a duffle bag it is 50lbs. So who really knows what an airplane weighs when it takes off????

And the cargo hold of every single one of our aircraft is loaded with cargo totally unrelated to the passengers flying. We carry US Mail...live chickens...roses(the 2nd most prolific legal export out of Colombia)...car parts...airplane parts...you name it. If it is a widebody, there are pallets upon pallets of cargo aboard. There are certain routes that are subsidized by cargo...IOW, there may not be many humans on board but we are still making money. We make BIG money on cargo. It is indiscriminate....and it has to go. Whereas humans may not go if the price is too much....the cargo has to go!!!

Andy G said:

Regarding aircraft weight issues, would it not be logical to price tickets on a passenger weight scale.

Click to expand...

We do that now in many ways now. Every bag is weighed as it's checked and as far as passengers, men are calc'd at an average 200 pounds and women’s at 179. Winter weight is calculated heavier (but fuel is denser so it offsets a bit). Stow bin weights are built in to max zero fuel weight calculation and are covered under Part 121. (not counted against cargo weight)

You'd be amazed at the distance we would go to save weight. There aren't many things that mean more to a customer. Even paint weight is designed in on each aircraft. There are 555 pounds of paint on a 747-400.

Many arguments get started about NOT painting an airplane, but the efficiencies gained by reducing the weight do not offset the cosmetic upkeep cost associated with a polished airplane. That's why not many polish anymore.

During the past few days I've read in USA Today, Financial TImes, WSJ and the Seattle papers and heard aircraft experts commenting on:

• 3 large (747s) cargo planes have crashed in the past 5 years and burned due to the Li battery cargo
• FAA comments are very dubious about a quick fix for the Li battery systems on the 787 with even test flights of the 787 curtailed
• FAA and aircraft design consultants are murmuring about removing the Li batteries in their entirety and replacing with "older" FAA approved units.
• The Li battery charger company, Thales, from France is saying Boeing did the design of the battery/charger/output systems with the suppliers not on the hook for the cost of the fix
• The battery supplier appears to be the largest and longest lived in the Li business supplying batteries to NASA for Space Station applications

Unless this issue is dealt with effectively and quickly Boeing's customers do not have the balance sheet strength to weather the storm. The revenue gain/loss of a few hundred pounds of batteries per plane is quickly evaporating.