FAA grounds 787

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.

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.

Marin said:

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. .

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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 said:

I remain,

Clueless in Seattle

Click to expand...

Well, at least you've got a good grasp on that part.

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.

BruceK said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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!

FF said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Ah, progress. Ain't it grand! KJ

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.

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 said:

remain,

Clueless in Seattle

Click to expand...

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 said:

Your "information" about Airbus and their situation is about as far off the mark as it can be, by the way.

Click to expand...

Only if one disregards Airbus statements made today.

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.

Worldwide grounding = teething problems? Denial.

Keith said:

Worldwide grounding = teething problems? Denial.

Click to expand...

Another clueless person heard from. Stick to GoJo, Keith. There's no denying you know how that works.

The NTSB has put up a website with some interesting information:

Accident Investigations - Boeing 787

Marin said:
They are in some pretty big trouble with their A350 over issues that have nothing to do with batteries.
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,


Business 101 in product sales is to run down the competition. I may be clueless as to what is happening behind closed doors in Boeing, but as far as how profit/loss, risk/reward, implementation of new technology or CEO decision making I may be a step or two above clueless.

Here is how one could speculate, and likely be very close to the truth - EADS has known for some time that Boeing was facing electrical and power supply new design issues on the 787. Knowing this they avoided the first time ever power supply design philosophy their Boeing spies were passing on to them. Think about a well placed French company that is in the middle of Boeing's design for power supply while at the same time knowing the French are masters at industrial espionage.

Fast forward to this week in Davos where the World Economic Forum was being held. A very important guy with Airbus named Febrice Bregier (look up his creds) gave some interesting remarks to Reuters TV about how Airbus is learning from Boeing and working with regulators to avoid Boeing's teething problems on the 350.

EADS has been waiting a long time for this marketing coup to drop into their lap. Just as Marin's statements above points out real Airbus issues, Airbus is now doing the same.

Every utterance on the NET regarding this issue, including this thread, is being followed by some sales guy, whether in Seattle or Europe. Business 101 in the product sales industry says so.

sunchaser said:

Here is how one could speculate, and likely be very close to the truth - EADS has known for some time that Boeing was facing electrical and power supply new design issues on the 787. Knowing this they avoided the first time ever power supply design philosophy their Boeing spies were passing on to them.

Click to expand...

Clueless speculation would be my guess... the A350 type design uses the same technology.

But, they will benefit from whatever comes of this though.

SomeSailor said:

Clueless speculation would be my guess... the A350 type design uses the same technology.

But, they will benefit from whatever comes of this though.

Click to expand...

EADS says

• they don't use the Boeing design
• plus they have sufficient time to insure their design complies with FFA findings from the 787 investigation

sunchaser said:

EADS says

• they don't use the Boeing design
• plus they have sufficient time to insure their design complies with FFA findings from the 787 investigation

Click to expand...

Both statements are true but the first one doesn't mean it's better and the second one is true because they are having all sorts of other problems that are delaying their airplane so a redesign of part of their electrical system carries no delay penalty at this point. Also when you think about it, the second one is a totally meaningless statement other than its PR value with the ignorant because Airbus has no choice but to make sure their design complies with whatever the FAA, JAA, requirements turn out to be, just as we will.

BTW--- If you knew anything about this industry at all you would have long since learned, as has the entire industry including the airllines, that any sentence that starts with "Airbus says...." or "EADS says..." should be taken with a massive chunk of salt. There are a couple of huge airplane orders that I know of specifically because I helped support them that came to us in large part because Airbus lied to and misled the customer.

This is not a reflection on their product, but on the way they do business and spin public perception.

Marin said:

spin public perception.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear here Boeing never does this, sometime does this or is guilty just as much?

JD said:

Just to be clear here Boeing never does this, sometime does this or is guilty just as much?

Click to expand...

Based on 30-plus years of supporting our sales and marketing efforts and being present at countless sales and marketing strategy meetings-- as well as supporting the folks we have whose job it is to keep a close watch on what our competition is doing--- I would have to say that if anything, we are too honest. Boeing has always been on the conservative side with our product promises and this dates back to before WWII.

As an example, the other year both Tim Clark, CEO of Emirates and one of the two most powerful people in the airline industry today, and his operations director told me in interviews that one of the best things (for them) about working with Boeing is that our planes--- the 777 in this case---- always come in "better than book" to use their words. Which means they are able to do much more with the planes than they had originally planned.

The 777-300 for example, which they had ordered for a certain set of routes turned out to be able to fly even longer routes. So much so that they had to retrofit overhead crew rest areas into the planes, an option they had initially rejected, because they found the -300 could fly on routes long enough to require extra crew, like Dubai to the US east coast. This is, as they put it, a huge benefit for them because the planes become much more flexible in terms of how the airline can use them. And flexibility--- the ability to make money on the widest range of routes--- is one of the most important attributes an airplane can have as far as an airline is concerned.

This is in direct opposition to Airbus which consistently promises more than their planes often end up being able to do. This has severely pissed off a lot of their customers. For example there was one year in the later 1990s when we sold more A340s than Airbus did. The reason? We took them in trade for 777s from airlines that had had it with the inability of the A340 to carry the loads over the distances they had been promised by Airbus.

So while you would expect a company employee to say their company is superior in many regards than the competition this is one place where I believe the facts bear this out.

So we can take that as a "sometimes does" as opposed to "all the time."

Does this include when they are in the Pentagon asking for over runs in cost?

JD said:

So we can take that as a "sometimes does" as opposed to "all the time."

Click to expand...

Well, you can take it however you want. Since you don't work for the company your guess is as good as anyone elses' who doesn't work for the company. Which of course, also means that your opinion is irrelevant to reality.

Does this include when they are in the Pentagon asking for over runs in cost?

Click to expand...

Beats the hell out of me. I rarely support our military projects except in the case of the programs in which Boeing Commercial Airplanes is involved--- the 737 P8 and 767 tanker being the most recent examples, and even then it is supporting the commercial airplane side of the program, not the defense side.

I suspect that Boeing plays by the same "rules" that all the defense contractors do. If we didn't, we wouldn't be very successful in that field. But what those "rules" are, I have no idea.

sunchaser said:

EADS says

• they don't use the Boeing design
• plus they have sufficient time to insure their design complies with FFA findings from the 787 investigation

Click to expand...

But they do make extensive use of Lithium Ion battery technology (in the same way Boeing does)

And I have no idea what the Future Farmers of America's findings will be on this (or the FAA if that's what you mean?)

Airbus does not certify through the FAA (or the FFA), they are certified through EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) and (IATA International Air transport Association)