I always said that using dilithium crystal batteries was to boldly go a step to far!

 

Looks like its a good machine to keep a significant distance away from!

Les

 

It looks like good news for Boeing, but what about customer confidence?

In the following blurb it states "This is the most tested commercial airplane ever built". !!!

http://787updates.newairplane.com/FA...textual-Boeing

 

I can't say I'm in a rush to climb inside one.

 

still not sure what cracked off though are they? didnt they say they found no faults?

 

Sounds like they have only tried to contain the issue .They have not fixed the cause.This sounds like a rush job to get them flying again & try to get things rolling(revenue) as they won't want to spend a long time finding the original fault.

Quote from Boeing:

"But the single most important thing I would say is that even if we don't know root cause, and even if we never know root cause, the enclosure keeps the airplane safe. It eliminates the possibility of fire. It keeps heat out of the airplane. It keeps smoke out of the airplane. And it ensures that no matter what happens to the battery, regardless of root cause, the airplane is safe."

 

I heard that quote on the radio this morning, couldn't help thinking how safe an aircraft with far more electrically operated systems than any other actually could be if it's batteries are expected to catch fire

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm sure batteries stop functioning properly when they're in flames

 

I too was gobsmacked when the Boeing boss man was being interviewed on TV, (in the plane whilst flying) and gave out a load of BS!
Shame on you Boeing, putting a duff battery in a box is not a cure.
Finding the cause is.

New notice for the Boeing test centre door,
"Warning, may contain nuts"

I wonder how many passengers like playing Russian Roulette?.

Bulsh1t interview is in this article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22315317

 

Yeah, I felt exactly the same, when I listened to a report re the reintroduction of the aircraft I thought I was going to hear quite a technical piece about the analysis of the chemical content of the battery and the remediation of thermal runaway problem

What I actually heard was a guy say the we're going to put it in a "box", he said it as if a "box" was an amazing new invention developed especially for a thermal runaway problem

The best bit was when he simply said and any fire simply vents out of a tube out the back of the plane -brilliant

Some fine minds have obviously been working on the problem for literally hours

 

Yes, but it is a special box.
It is made of stainless steel, with a vent, they have drilled a hole in the fuselage to put this vent through.
The purpose of the vent is to allow a battery fire to vent to atmosphere.
They must be expecting battery problems, otherwise why create this 'solution'?

How can the FAA have approved this 'solution' ?

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/04...7-battery-fix/

 

I think they know what the fault is; The batteries are too stressed, and cannot be de-rated as then there wouldn't be sufficient capacity, and larger batteries cannot be fitted due to space/weight restrictions (remember one of the main point of using these batteries is to save weight). The controls that prevent li-ion runaways is fully known which include pressure venting, over current, over voltage, over discharge and thermal shutdowns, and as such are adopted in pretty much every mobile device on the market.

Li-ion batteries don't like being heavily stressed; from either being charged too quick or discharged too quick. These are the two main situations that cause a runaway and protection from that is done using strict charge/discharge criteria. I think its clear that the batteries on the dream liner are running at a higher stress margin than initially anticipated and with restricted cooling - now restricted further due to the "fire box".

The only other cause of catastrophic failure of Li-ions is from faulty manufacture where foreign metal partials have polluted the cell during manufacture. I think the NTSB ruled that out anyway and I very much doubt this is the case as if faulty manufacture were more common we'd have a lot more exploding phones and laptops

Regardless of the batteries. The "fire-box" is still something that is needed, as if you look at the location of the batteries, they are situated adjacent to various other aircraft systems, so a uncontainable fire could have damaged aircraft systems and cause a loss of control.

Point to note the Dreamliner is one of the first large scale applications of large Li-ions cell battery packs with a large current draw. Toyota have recently (2012) started selling Priuses with li-ion batteries (formerly ni-mh), so it'll be interesting to see if these start developing issues......

 

If the onboard operating systems are reliant on these batteries , what is the back up system in the event of a total power failure due to fire.

 

Good question!

At least the Tin Triangle was very well provided for in the case of electrical failures but it was well designed so that sort of thing did not use to happen except due to external causes which were not the fault of the aircraft.

Les

 

These batteries are the back-up system, and used on ground when the engines are not running. Once the jet engines are fired-up, they provide all the power for the aircraft (and also power to re-charge the batteries!).

 

It may be possible to get sufficient power to operate the aircraft with total generator circuit failure by using the APU if it is safe to run it while airborne. It still seems to me to be short sighted to use those Li On batteries until they have been further developed to be completely reliable under their present operating conditions.

I would not like to have to rely on them anyway!

Les

 

One or two more problems..
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/boeing...lems-1-5767639

 

You read The Star?

Oh dear me.

 

I would feel very uneasy to have anything to do with that aircraft. Can't help feeling that there has been a bit too much cutting of corners as far as the design id concerned. I have known aircraft a bit like that in my pretty long experience and they were always trouble in one form or another. Being airborne is not the place to have to deal with such shortcomings.

Les

 

No, I just surf the web for news items.

 

They kept this quiet..

http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...tcanceled.html

 

Did they?

I think thats just a minor technical hitch, like alot of planes have. If it can't be fixed in a timely manner the flight has to be cancelled.

For example I had to pick up someone up from BHX on Tuesday and their flight was delayed by 3hours due to a component failure with some gear in the nose cone...the same fault appeared on the same plane a few months before....its a 12month old Airbus A321. The plane could fly with the fault....but it wasn't allowed to take off knowing that the fault was present.

Not in the news either, but then why should it be?

 

That plane is a liability.

I know there's another post about it, but I'll just add it here as a continuation.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/heathrow-pl...8.html#oRmdK22

 

This is a massive head ache for Boeing. Will it bring them down

Paul

 

Now thats a bit more newsworthy/concerning. :

 

Boeing shares fell by 5% within minutes of the news breaking.

I feel sorry for Thompson, they've just started running their Dreamliner ads again on TV.

 

Top of fuselage is scorched. Does this make it a hull loss?

 

Thomson 787 now diverted due to technical issue apparently

 

Holy cr@p, thank goodnes that plane was empty.

Boeing must be bracing themselves for the backlash.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....mliner-5076706

 

Bit of felt, jobs a goodun

 

Only if it's cold fitted, not the type that you need the blowtorch for.