By: lbaspotter - 12th March 2013 at 22:25
The FAA has approved Boeing’s plan of a a set of fixes to the lithium ion batteries of its Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Thus clearing the way for the aircraft to resume flights which it said requires it to “conduct extensive testing and analysis”.
By: KERVYN - 12th March 2013 at 10:23
‘the ongoing battery crisis’…
see last § in ;
friendly,
Etienne
By: KERVYN - 8th March 2013 at 10:24
PROBLEM NOT YET SOLVED !!!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/08/boeing-dreamliner-japan-idUST9N09901F20130308
friendly,
Etienne
By: KERVYN - 21st February 2013 at 08:33
Is the problem solved ?
http://www.suntimes.com/business/18353514-420/japan-probe-finds-miswiring-of-boeing-787-battery.html
friendly yours, Etienne
By: KERVYN - 15th February 2013 at 17:17
just a short break…
http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/38/2013/01/17/125725_600.jpg
friendly, Etienne
By: Skymonster - 14th February 2013 at 22:24
Yes, LOT have extended leases on 767s until October so have no need for their Plastic Pigs until then
By: Matt-100 - 14th February 2013 at 19:05
Erm, can someone clarify this for me? According to The Seattle Times, LOT will be keeping its 787s grounded until October at the earliest? Is this a journalistic error, or are the 787 problems really this bad?
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020353578_apeupolanddreamliner.html
By: MSR777 - 9th February 2013 at 19:12
The final report on these battery fires might not be so easy on the ears to Boeing and the 787.
Indeed not. I wonder how badly affected the delivery schedule will be.
By: Matt-100 - 8th February 2013 at 22:56
The crew went below the designated hight of 100 ft and so the fly-by-wire stall prevention measures didn’t kick in as the computers thought the aircraft was landing.
Obviously it would have been a PR disaster for Airbus (even if it wasn’t their fault) but any straight thinking airline executive isn’t going to cancel orders prematurely. Once the final report was published public confidence would have grown again and the A320 proved to be successful.
The final report on these battery fires might not be so easy on the ears to Boeing and the 787.
By: Arabella-Cox - 8th February 2013 at 19:56
Yes, I too would question the A320 analogy. That’s like comparing apples to oranges, the A320 air show crash was caused by pilot error and inadequate crew training from Air France. These 787 problems are a fundamental issue with the aircraft itself.
Really??? So an aircraft that pretty much pioneered the use of digital fly by wire flight controls system allowed aircrew to enter into an extremely dangerous (fatal) manoeuvre. And that wouldn’t be a public relations issue? And pilot-aircraft interface issues can be neatly written off as not an issue with the airplane and its systems itself?
I’m pretty sure the average airline passenger wouldn’t make the fine distinction you’re relying on.
By: merlin2 - 8th February 2013 at 17:53
Yes absolutely ..They couldn’t handle the fly-by-wire properly due to inadequate crew training ! there was nothing wrong with the aircraft itself.
By: Matt-100 - 8th February 2013 at 17:39
Yes, I too would question the A320 analogy. That’s like comparing apples to oranges, the A320 air show crash was caused by pilot error and inadequate crew training from Air France. These 787 problems are a fundamental issue with the aircraft itself.
If anything the Habsheim crash served as testament to the structural integrity of the aircraft – despite being packed I understand only 3 lost their lives (due to being unable to escape from the fire and smoke due to blocked exits rather than as a direct result of the crash itself). I doubt many aircraft could plow into a forest with the forest being the one to come off second best :p
By: merlin2 - 8th February 2013 at 17:23
I have to agree. From an historical perspective the A320 program suffered a far more traumatic start to its service life, but survived. First A320 delivery – 26 March 1988. First A320 crash involving loss of life – 26 June 1988.
This is not the same.. No Airbus or Boeing model had been grounded completely one year after the first delivery ( do I miss something here ?? ) ..This situation is unique.. The worst nightmare for Boeing would be to find out that the batteries are O.K but there is a serious imbalance between the total available battery power and the total electrical power the aircraft needs to function properly. If this is the reason for overheating, the 787 is f… up
and the Boeing engineers who screwed this up because they had 3 years time from 2008 to 2011 to solve or ascertain this problem will have to go back to drawing board resulting in massive delays and enourmous cost and huge image loss for Boeing. Remember, the 787’s break even is estimated to be around 2000 aircraft !! and this is for now…
By: Derekf - 8th February 2013 at 12:36
I was under the impression the authorities (FAA and others) were the ones who did the testing?
This is what happens in a free market economy when you let the manufacturers do their own testing – they work the system and cut corners in order to get certification.
With the FAA working the 787 with a fine toothed comb, it will be interesting to see whether they ask for the resertification of other components (other than the battery).
Manufacturers have always done their own testing. The FAA/CAA are there to oversee the tests and give their stamp of approval. They are involved from the very beginning of a project to ensure that the right testing is planned, it is carried out properly and it is reported correctly. Something has fallen through the cracks here, but whether it should have been spotted before? We’ll found out eventually. Maybe.
By: Bmused55 - 8th February 2013 at 12:13
I’m sure the armchair investigators will have known all along it was the battery, but its still rather unfair of you to say that, because just over a week ago…
Dear lord, you didn’t believe that PR nonsense did you? 😉
By: Arabella-Cox - 8th February 2013 at 10:38
There’s no way there’s going to be mass cancellations of 787 orders at the moment… The only way those would start is if the program is grounded for years. Airlines who are into the 787 have little choice – the 787 can perform some missions that no other in-service aircraft can undertake and reduces costs dramatically on others, and the only alternative – the A350 – isn’t gong to be in service for at least another 18 months and has a huge order backlog already.
I have to agree. From an historical perspective the A320 program suffered a far more traumatic start to its service life, but survived. First A320 delivery – 26 March 1988. First A320 crash involving loss of life – 26 June 1988.
By: Skymonster - 8th February 2013 at 08:56
I’m sure the armchair investigators will have known all along it was the battery, but its still rather unfair of you to say that, because just over a week ago…
Boeing 787 aircraft battery ‘not faulty’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21230940
By: Bmused55 - 8th February 2013 at 07:52
US NTSB Says Boeing 787 Problems Originated in its Battery
No $h!t sherlock!
By: AirportsEd - 7th February 2013 at 23:19
Boeing’s Feb 7 Statement
The latest from Boeing:
By: Matt-100 - 7th February 2013 at 22:55
I was under the impression the authorities (FAA and others) were the ones who did the testing?
This is what happens in a free market economy when you let the manufacturers do their own testing – they work the system and cut corners in order to get certification.
With the FAA working the 787 with a fine toothed comb, it will be interesting to see whether they ask for the resertification of other components (other than the battery).
Sign In
January 7, 2013 at 5:15 pm
