Japan grounds B787 Dreamliner's

[rainsberger 0]

Hi Guys

 

Japan's major airlines have grounded their Boeing 787 planes for safety checks, hours after one was forced to make an emergency landing, in the latest blow for the new jet.

All Nippon Airways said a cockpit message showed battery problems and a burning smell was detected in the cockpit and the cabin, forcing the 787 on a domestic flight to land at Takamatsu airport in western Japan.

 

The 787, known as the Dreamliner, is Boeing's newest and most technologically advanced jet and the company is counting heavily on its success.

But since its launch, which came after delays of more than three years, the plane has been plagued by a series of problems including a battery fire and fuel leaks. Japan's ANA and Japan Airlines are major customers for the jet and among the first to fly it.

Japan's transport ministry said it received notices from ANA, which operates 17 of the jets, and Japan Airlines which has seven, that all their 787 aircraft would not be flying. The grounding was done voluntarily by the airlines.

 

The ministry categorised the problem as a "serious incident" that could have led to an accident, and sent officials for further checks to Takamatsu airport. The airport was closed.

ANA executives apologised, bowing deeply at a hastily-called news conference in Tokyo. "We are very sorry to have caused passengers and their family members so much concern," said ANA senior executive vice president Osamu Shinobe.

A man in his 60s was taken to the hospital for minor hip injuries after going down the emergency slides at the airport, the fire brigade said. The other 128 passengers and eight crew members of the ANA domestic flight were uninjured, according to ANA.

 

The grounding in Japan was the first for the 787, whose problems had been brushed off by Boeing as teething pains for a new aircraft. The ministry had already started a separate inspection on Monday on another 787 jet, operated by Japan Airlines, which had leaked fuel at Tokyo's Narita airport after flying back from Boston, Massachusetts, where it had also leaked fuel.

The US Federal Aviation Administration said it was "monitoring a preliminary report of an incident in Japan earlier today involving a Boeing 787". It said the incident would be included in the comprehensive review the FAA began last week of the 787 critical systems, including design, manufacture and assembly. US government officials were quick to say that the plane is safe - nearly 50 of them are in the skies now.

[js007 795]

Remind me never to get on one of these planes.

[samfreeland 64]

Its only a burning smell coming from the cockpit probably the control panel.

Hardly worth diverting the flight for.

[MrMango 661]

Its only a burning smell coming from the cockpit probably the control panel.

Hardly worth diverting the flight for.

I disagree.

ANY fire in a airplane is a potentially fatal incident. Get the bird on the ground NOW.

[jacko 8,696]

I disagree.

ANY fire in a airplane is a potentially fatal incident. Get the bird on the ground NOW.

Maybe some dick-head in the toilet with one of them funny electric cigarettes!

[short 215]

Never Forget Value Jet 592

 

 

 

I am really disappointed that Boeing would do something this stupid.

[Kev 173]

A burning smell coming from the cockpit I could understand on a Thai flight.....most likely a chilli fart from the pilot.

[The Mook 105]

FAA follows suit...this is a major issue for Boeing

[short 215]

I'm disappointed that the FAA ever left this plane off the ground the first time with Lithium Ion batteries onboard.

[Samsonite 177]

The FAA grounding is in regard to the batteries and the re-charging system for the batteries. The batteries are made in Japan, the re-charging system in France, Once that is sorted out, they should be flying again. One retired 747 captain has suggested they just replace the Lithium batteries with Ni-cads. I don't know if the solution is that easy.

[js007 795]

The FAA grounding is in regard to the batteries and the re-charging system for the batteries. The batteries are made in Japan, the re-charging system in France, Once that is sorted out, they should be flying again. One retired 747 captain has suggested they just replace the Lithium batteries with Ni-cads. I don't know if the solution is that easy.

 

If the battery performance in computers and cameras is any indication, the lithium batteries have more of a capacity. That's why they want to use them. Of course, they're also prone to fire and when they burn they create their own oxygen? A problem, for sure. I wouldn't want to be 38,000 feat in the air in a plane with a fire in the system controlling it all.

[scorpions 6]

Won't fly wirh deadliner ...

[jacko 8,696]

Won't fly wirh deadliner ...

Well they are grounded for now anyhow.

It is a problem, it will be resolved and the aircraft back in the air.

 

Just a reality check for all the Boeing fans out there who were harping on during A380 problems....

[wacmedia 277]

Hi,

 

This plane was supposed to save on fuel costs. I'm sure it's saving lots of money for fuel when it's on the ground. Unintended consequences.

[jacko 8,696]

Hi,

 

This plane was supposed to save on fuel costs. I'm sure it's saving lots of money for fuel when it's on the ground. Unintended consequences.

It is at it's most efficient when the engines are stopped and it is being pulled around by an electric towing vehicle.

[Samsonite 177]

If the battery performance in computers and cameras is any indication, the lithium batteries have more of a capacity. That's why they want to use them. Of course, they're also prone to fire and when they burn they create their own oxygen? A problem, for sure. I wouldn't want to be 38,000 feat in the air in a plane with a fire in the system controlling it all.

 

The 787 is the most tested and inspected airliner in the history of aviation. The FAA had questions about using lithium batteries and setup special requirements for the battery system. Boeing complied with the requirements and the FAA inspected, tested, and certified the aircraft.

It had several thousand hours of flight testing and over 50,000 flight hours since it went into commercial service, so why are there problems with the batteries now?

Edited January 19, 2013 by Samsonite

[jacko 8,696]

The 787 is the most tested and inspected airliner in the history of aviation. The FAA had questions about using lithium batteries and setup special requirements for the battery system. Boeing complied with the requirements and the FAA inspected, tested, and certified the aircraft.

It had several thousand hours of flight testing and over 50,000 flight hours since it went into commercial service, so why are there problems with the batteries now?

I am not sure where you get this 'testing' information and are you asking a rhetorical question (who would you expect to answer these questions here on a pussy forum?)

Lithium batteries were a know flight hazard, the several thousand hours of testing may not have beeen consecutive, namely tests accumulated using many aircraft/ and many different batteries. There could be an ageing/ cumulative pressure cycling affect, or the manufacturing specifications not adhered to.

I am thinking of the Comet.

 

Perhaps also Concorde, which explored many new technologies.

[Samsonite 177]

I am not sure where you get this 'testing' information and are you asking a rhetorical question (who would you expect to answer these questions here on a pussy forum?)

Lithium batteries were a know flight hazard, the several thousand hours of testing may not have beeen consecutive, namely tests accumulated using many aircraft/ and many different batteries. There could be an ageing/ cumulative pressure cycling affect, or the manufacturing specifications not adhered to.

I am thinking of the Comet.

 

Perhaps also Concorde, which explored many new technologies.

 

Six aircraft were used for the flight testing program and the results are well documented. How much of that is available to the public I don't know. Boeing did have, probably still has, a web site just for the 787 flight test program.

Much of the information I read is from a forum where one of the participants is a 787 test pilot. A couple of others are Boeing engineers. They are careful what the say as they cannot reveal proprietary information, but they provide insight into the program we couldn't get otherwise and they try to correct some of the wild ass speculation, mis-information and outright lies (mostly from the airbus fanboys) that you would expect on a forum.

You always seem to have an answer, so give it a shot.

The Comet suffered from metal fatigue around the windows. Three of them exploded in mid-air before the cause was discovered.

The Concorde only had one fatal crash (that I'm aware of) in July of 2000. It was the result of a tire damaged by debris on the runway and pieces from the tire punctured a fuel tank.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Samsonite

[jacko 8,696]

Six aircraft were used for the flight testing program and the results are well documented. ETC....

You were asking ,

so why are there problems with the batteries now?

And the two answers are.

1) They were insufficiently tested.

2) They are being manufactured/tested or supplied differently than those which were tested.

 

Testing is often developed well before items go into production... I was involved in software testing for aircraft and often complained that the tests were targeting the features and capabilities of the software and not throwing any complex scenarios at it.

This happens when something is completely new. It is obvious that there is a problem with the battery/ charging and how it behaves perhaps after many cycles, be it of charge or other affects flight subjects them to.

Other problems I had was when we changed suppliers, particularly to overseas suppliers, and some fool deemed they could self certify, or be responsible for their own QC.

 

It will be interesting to find out what happened here, if it ever becomes public knowledge.

Edited January 19, 2013 by jacko

[Samsonite 177]

You were asking ,

 

And the two answers are.

1) They were insufficiently tested.

2) They are being manufactured/tested or supplied differently than those which were tested.

 

Testing is often developed well before items go into production... I was involved in software testing for aircraft and often complained that the tests were targeting the features and capabilities of the software and not throwing any complex scenarios at it.

This happens when something is completely new. It is obvious that there is a problem with the battery/ charging and how it behaves perhaps after many cycles, be it of charge or other affects flight subjects them to.

Other problems I had was when we changed suppliers, particularly to overseas suppliers, and some fool deemed they could self certify, or be responsible for their own QC.

 

It will be interesting to find out what happened here, if it ever becomes public knowledge.

 

The charging system may be from a French company and the batteries cells are Japanese, but it turns out the battery components are put together by an Arizona company, who sub-contracted the assembly process to a Vietnamese company. How is that for irony?

Boeing farmed out entirely too much of 787 and it has become apparent, to me anyway, they have not properly audited their sub-contractors nor have they been testing the components delivered to them.

Another management failure and it supports the theory that the McDonnell/Douglas management team, who drove their company into the ground, somehow managed to take over Boeing with Boeing's money.

The people coming out of the business schools seem to be extraordinarily short sighted.

[samfreeland 64]

it has become apparent, to me anyway, they have not properly audited their sub-contractors nor have they been testing the components delivered to them.

I agree. The whole show seems rushed they have probably painted themselves in to a corner with delivery dates and penalty's if they don't deliver on time. So now the components are being tested using live crash test dummies you the consumer.

I think they got the extra wide money rake out to soon probably to please whoever is funding them. I may sound cynical here but i would feel safer flying on one in five yrs time after all the gremlins have been found out. It wouldn't surprise me if a couple going down was written in to the equation.

[Samsonite 177]

I agree. The whole show seems rushed they have probably painted themselves in to a corner with delivery dates and penalty's if they don't deliver on time. So now the components are being tested using live crash test dummies you the consumer.

I think they got the extra wide money rake out to soon probably to please whoever is funding them. I may sound cynical here but i would feel safer flying on one in five yrs time after all the gremlins have been found out. It wouldn't surprise me if a couple going down was written in to the equation.

 

Well, had the plane been delivered on time that might very well have been the case, but it was 3 years late and Boeing has already paid out Billions in penalties for late deliveries (in money and substitute aircraft, usually 767s). It will be years before they see a profit given all of the cost overruns, production delays, late fee penalties, and heavily discounted prices.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Samsonite

[jacko 8,696]

Out sourcing or manufacturing elsewhere doesn't seem to be helping Boeing and the Dreamliner.

Again a Japanese source, like the batteries, is suspect.

 

Boeing reports wing cracks on 787 Dreamliners in production.

Reuters

Edited March 7, 2014 by jacko

[Samsonite 177]

Karma.

This is what Boeing deserves for farming out the most significant structural component of the aircraft. The 787 wings are made by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, in Japan.

IIRC, the 787 was the first time the wing had been farmed out and will, mostly likely, be the last. Boeing has said they plan to make the new composite wing for the next generation 777 at a new plant in the Seattle area..

Edited March 9, 2014 by Samsonite