Boeing 787 Dreamliner troubles build

[777 fixer]

The multi-point Boeing plan is thought to cover a phased approach toward a fully modified lithium-ion battery system. The short-term fix focuses on a new containment system for the existing unit, together with added venting ducts for smoke and additional monitors. It is also thought to incorporate another layer of crew procedures to check battery health and status via the engine indication and crew alerting system before, during and after flight.

http://www.aviationw..._p33-551204.xml

I'm familiar with what they are doing. Point I was making was that it would be a bad idea to put their eggs in one basket. What dod they do if the FAA tells them they can't put them back in? Then what?

 

[Knotbuyinit]

I'm familiar with what they are doing. Point I was making was that it would be a bad idea to put their eggs in one basket. What dod they do if the FAA tells them they can't put them back in? Then what?

If you are familiar with what they are doing then you also realize that it was the FAA that approved, and certified, the configuration in the first place. Boeing and the FAA know exactly why 1 of 8 lithium battery cells shorted and have taken corrective actions to reduce the risk. BTW, Ni-Cad battery cells have been known to short as well. I'm not impressed with your "progressive" thinking.

 

[777 fixer]

If you are familiar with what they are doing then you also realize that it was the FAA that approved, and certified, the configuration in the first place. Boeing and the FAA know exactly why 1 of 8 lithium battery cells shorted and have taken corrective actions to reduce the risk. BTW, Ni-Cad battery cells have been known to short as well. I'm not impressed with your "progressive" thinking.

No one knows the root cause of the fires yet, to claim the FAA and Boeing know is incorrect. While the FAA might have bought off on the original configuration as it has now come out the process was flawed.

P.S. I'm not impressed with your understanding of the facts.

 

[Captain Reality]

All they got to do is yank out the Yuasa garbage and put in another battery from another vendor. Surely Johnson Controls,Panasonic,or Exide could come up with a replacement and get the 787 back in the air. Maybe even Concorde or Gill might have a Lithium ion battery that could be used.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

No one knows the root cause of the fires yet, to claim the FAA and Boeing know is incorrect. While the FAA might have bought off on the original configuration as it has now come out the process was flawed.

P.S. I'm not impressed with your understanding of the facts.

The NTSB investigation has pinpointed Cell 6 as the origin of the fire that broke out in the aircraft's eight-cell lithium-ion auxiliary power unit (APU) battery. Just prior to the event, the voltage “unexpectedly dropped from its full charge of 32 volts to about 28 volts,” says the board, which is consistent with the charge voltage of a single cell.

Like the NTSB , the Japanese investigators report that a thermal runaway condition in which the cells are destroyed in a chain reaction was observed. It also says that adjacent Cells 3 and 6 were particularly damaged while all eight cells showed internal fusing.

View attachment 9712

http://www.aviationw..._p38-546396.xml

If the FAA and Boeing are unsure of the root cause of the problem then why are FAA officals days away from approving an extensive flight test program?

Not impressed with your lack of understanding.

 

[777 fixer]

View attachment 9712

http://www.aviationw..._p38-546396.xml

If the FAA and Boeing are unsure of the root cause of the problem then why are FAA officals days away from approving an extensive flight test program?

There's your answer. They don't know what the root cause is in all of this. If they did it would have been announced already.

As to your rhetorical question regarding the the flight test program the answer is rather simple. The only way you are going to get the 787 back in the air is to put up a fully instrumentated test aircraft with the current "fix" in the air. You can do all the testing you want on the ground but in the end it cannot replace flight testing.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

FAA Approves Boeing 787 Certification Plan

"The battery system improvements include a redesign of the internal battery components to minimize initiation of a short circuit within the battery, better insulation of the cells and the addition of a new containment and venting system."

"The FAA also has approved limited test flights for two aircraft. These aircraft will have the prototype versions of the new containment system installed. The purpose of the flight tests will be to validate the aircraft instrumentation for the battery and battery enclosure testing in addition to product improvements for other systems."

Lithium-ion battery fire probable cause, Dendrite?

 

[777 fixer]

FAA Approves Boeing 787 Certification Plan

"The battery system improvements include a redesign of the internal battery components to minimize initiation of a short circuit within the battery, better insulation of the cells and the addition of a new containment and venting system."

"The FAA also has approved limited test flights for two aircraft. These aircraft will have the prototype versions of the new containment system installed. The purpose of the flight tests will be to validate the aircraft instrumentation for the battery and battery enclosure testing in addition to product improvements for other systems."

Lithium-ion battery fire probable cause, Dendrite?

Test flights with instrumentated test aircraft, imagine that.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Test flights with instrumentated test aircraft, imagine that.

Modified battery and battery status systems, NTSB / FAA approved test flights, all without complete root cause analysis, imagine that.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Modified battery and battery status systems, NTSB / FAA approved test flights, all without complete root cause analysis, imagine that.

"Boeing is expecting a pretty short testing period for their proposed battery fix though the FAA could mandate more tests. Boeing needs to conduct only one test flight with the proposed fix on ZA272 (LN 86, SP-LRC). ZA005 (LN 5, N787FT) will conduct ground tests of the fix. Both aircraft are in the process of being retrofitted with the battery fix. Boeing has told me that it takes about 4 to 5 days to remove the old lithium ion battery set up and install the new battery assembly for both the main and APU battery. Boeing has declined to reveal how many ground and flight test hours will be needed to finish testing though Ron Hinderberger, Boeing Vice President, 787-8 Engineering says the current plan calls for only one test flight of the upgrade system on ZA272. The total ground and flight tests should be no more than a couple of weeks though the FAA can mandate additional testing. It is the FAA who will the final say in this matter. Boeing is pretty confident of the fix because of the testing and work performed in their integrated systems labs but many of these test will have to be re-performed under the oversight of the FAA. Boeing said that about 1/3 of the required FAA testing is already completed.

Once the FAA has given it's sign off then Boeing will act aggressively to get the fix installed on the 50 787s that currently in customer hands. I would expect that there will be multiple Boeing teams at different locations working concurrently to do the retrofit which, as mentioned earlier, will take 4 to 5 days per airplane."
"Much has been made that the root cause of the battery incidents has not been discovered and that Boeing and the FAA are rushing this."

http://nyc787.blogspot.com/

They will still have to undergo the SRMD process prior to the AD being lifted. Ray LaHood really put the agency and Boeing in a box on this one with his involvement and over the top statements.

"'We Want to Be 1,000% Sure It's Safe:' LaHood on Boeing 787"

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100391820

 

[Knotbuyinit]

"Boeing is expecting a pretty short testing period for their proposed battery fix though the FAA could mandate more tests. Boeing needs to conduct only one test flight with the proposed fix on ZA272 (LN 86, SP-LRC). ZA005 (LN 5, N787FT) will conduct ground tests of the fix. Both aircraft are in the process of being retrofitted with the battery fix. Boeing has told me that it takes about 4 to 5 days to remove the old lithium ion battery set up and install the new battery assembly for both the main and APU battery. Boeing has declined to reveal how many ground and flight test hours will be needed to finish testing though Ron Hinderberger, Boeing Vice President, 787-8 Engineering says the current plan calls for only one test flight of the upgrade system on ZA272. The total ground and flight tests should be no more than a couple of weeks though the FAA can mandate additional testing. It is the FAA who will the final say in this matter. Boeing is pretty confident of the fix because of the testing and work performed in their integrated systems labs but many of these test will have to be re-performed under the oversight of the FAA. Boeing said that about 1/3 of the required FAA testing is already completed.

Once the FAA has given it's sign off then Boeing will act aggressively to get the fix installed on the 50 787s that currently in customer hands. I would expect that there will be multiple Boeing teams at different locations working concurrently to do the retrofit which, as mentioned earlier, will take 4 to 5 days per airplane."
"Much has been made that the root cause of the battery incidents has not been discovered and that Boeing and the FAA are rushing this."

http://nyc787.blogspot.com/

They will still have to undergo the SRMD process prior to the AD being lifted. Ray LaHood really put the agency and Boeing in a box on this one with his involvement and over the top statements.

"'We Want to Be 1,000% Sure It's Safe:' LaHood on Boeing 787"

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100391820

I find the information provided by Aviation Week to be the most thorough and reliable. For thoses without the digital or magazine subscription, you can keep up with the progress through their free website extension, www.aviationweek.com/787.

What do you think of the very real possibility that the lithium-ion fire was the result of a build up of Dendrite within the battery? Interesting stuff. I also find it interesting that Boeing determined, during aircraft certification tests, that a catastrophic lithium battery event was a 1 in 1.5 million flight hour risk. The aircraft have only accumulated about 52K flight hours.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Thanks for the link. I have not studied the Dendrite issue at all so I will not comment on it.

I wonder if their (Boeing) actuarial risk calculations were solely based on data from Yuasa and Thales? Or did Thales and Yuasa data, in combination with the Boeing and FAA test data, skew the SRM/SMS process?

 

[Knotbuyinit]

I wonder if their (Boeing) actuarial risk calculations were solely based on data from Yuasa and Thales? Or did Thales and Yuasa data, in combination with the Boeing and FAA test data, skew the SRM/SMS process?

Could very well be the case! I also read that Boeing was aware that ANA (if I recall) was changing lithium batteries at the rate of 2 per week with as many as 5 in one week! Something was obviously wrong with the battery and/or charging system.

I'm not a chemist so I can't really tell you much about the formation of Dendrite within the lithium-ion battery. I first read about the possibility of Dendrite formations (and the probable source of the battery fire) in the February 4th issue. Anyway, I really hope the modifications to the aircraft and battery / battery systems play out well for the aircraft and Boeing, it does seems to be a remarkable aircraft and a big leap of technology for the aviation community.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

As to your rhetorical question regarding the the flight test program the answer is rather simple. The only way you are going to get the 787 back in the air is to put up a fully instrumentated test aircraft with the current "fix" in the air. You can do all the testing you want on the ground but in the end it cannot replace flight testing.

What seems to speak volumes about Boeing’s confidence in the redesign is the fact that just one test flight is currently deemed sufficient to verify the improvements. Of course there are also hundreds, possibly thousands, of additional ground test hours still lying ahead of the Boeing battery team. There is also the possibility of additional test flights if not everything goes to plan – a situation that the 787 development team has become all-too-familiar with over the years.

http://www.aviationw...44-78db5af4b186

 

[777 fixer]

Modified battery and battery status systems, NTSB / FAA approved test flights, all without complete root cause analysis, imagine that.

I beleive that's what I have been saying the entire time.