Skip to comments.Scrutiny of 787 fire ramps up; Boeing shares fall
Posted on 01/08/2013 3:16:43 PM PST by ConservativeStatement
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) Federal safety investigators intensified their scrutiny of a Monday fire aboard a Boeing 787 as concerned investors sold shares in the aircraft maker for a second day.
Boeing on Tuesday confirmed that the fire aboard a Japan Airlines plane appeared to have started in a battery pack for the planes auxiliary power unit.
The National Transportation Safety Board described the fire damage to the battery as severe, and said it is sending two more investigators to examine the Japan Airlines plane. It also formed investigative groups to look at the planes electrical systems as well as the fire response.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Irrespective of that, the media feeds the public the image that debugging of the 787 is a failure by Boeing rather than a normal evolution in all new aircraft. They should consider themselves lucky, debugging the DC-10 and Electra occurred only after fatal crashes of each type.
My first question would be, who made the battery pack? Is it another wonderful Chinese import? We all know that China only sends us the best! The best counterfeit computer chips, knock offs and poison pet food that is.
A couple of employees of Jocundry’s books in East Lansing were aboard it.
Thanks ConservativeStatement. Seems like a good stock to watch.
“They should consider themselves lucky, debugging the DC-10 and Electra occurred only after fatal crashes of each type. “
BS. Engineering does not have to result in failure. Bad mangement is most likely the cause. For every failure there is an engineer saying, “Told ya so.”
Hell, we are in China’s back pocket — we HAVE to accept their products without question.
So who, what, where, & when?
273 lives lost. Why?:
In the investigation following the Flight 191 disaster, the National Transportation Safety Board found that mechanics in Tulsa had taken a shortcut in removing the engines from the plane's wing pylons for maintenance. That mistake two months before the crash had cracked an aluminum component in the pylon. Wear and tear widened the crack until the piece broke, and as the engine tore loose, it damaged electrical and hydraulic systems, a combination that left the plane unable to fly. When the DC-10 was certified for service 11 years earlier, engineers calculated the odds of such a simultaneous failure at 10 billion to 1.
I believe the instrument design in the cockpit also contributed to the loss of control. The MD-11 is also a faulty aircraft. Don’t land on one main gear in a crosswind unless you want the wing to collapse and catch on fire.
Thanks. I thought that looked like an engine up ahead of the wing.
FEDEX in Japan(?)
None of them are that particularly good. The 777 seems to be about the best. The rest? Well. Go on them if you wanna try.
I think that is the engine that stayed on the
plane. Imagine the view out the windows.
...the battery is of a lithium-ion design. There have been at least one and maybe two cargo aircraft (both Boeing 747-400Fs) brought down by lithium battery fires in the cargo manifests. We acknowledge that these were large quantities of batteries being shipped, but we also note that the FAA has restricted these batteries in the passenger cabin (TV camera crews, for example, now have to adjust their plans to carry camera equipment on board previously equipped with these batteries).
The FAA imposed a Special Condition regarding the use of lithium batteries on the 787.
Consumer-size LiIon batteries have been known to burst into flames...
Too bad those American mechanics took short cuts - the use of a forklift to remove and install engines 1 and 3 during maintenance - instead of following the book.
Lithium-ion batteries have begun to replace other battery chemistries in aerospace applications. For example, in 2007, the Boeing Corporation requested a waiver from the US Federal Aviation Administration to allow use of lithium-ion batteries for powering a number of systems on the 787 Dreamliner commercial aircraft design including: the main and APU, flight control electronics, the emergency lighting system, and as an independent power supply for the flight recorder.
That was the latest one. Also FEDEX in Newark, and a passenger MD-11 somewhere in Asia a few years ago.
The cargo latch failures later signed the death warrant for the 10's in airline passenger carrying service. As cargo haulers and the KC-10, their record has been very good.
I've sat in many design reviews where the engineers insist their design is perfect even though it can be and was proven to be unproducible, faulty or just plain failed in concept.
That's why there are dash numbers and revision letters in engineering documentation, someone fixed a design flaw or implemented a work-around.
I saw a 777 fly over today at about 10,000 feet. That is one huge aircraft for two engines. They routinely fly very long polar routes with the engines being monitored by satellite. It is one very impressive aircraft, though there was one in Egypt in 2011 that had a cockpit fire on the ground and was a total loss. No passenger fatalities in its operating history, though.
Eventually, the 787 will be impressive, too (other than on paper), but, with hindsight, a lot of mistakes were made.
The stock had a good day. The company climbed 3.5 percent to close at $76.76.