Skip to comments.Boeing keeps building Dreamliners it can't fly
Posted on 01/27/2013 3:47:53 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
Nobody is allowed to fly them. But Boeing can't stop churning them out.
A federal probe into electrical fires has grounded all 50 Boeing 787 Dreamliners around the world. But Boeing has little choice but to keep its assembly lines in South Carolina and Washington State running at their normal pace, building five jets a month. A significant slowdown in production, let alone a full shutdown, would be too costly for both Boeing and its suppliers who are counting on making parts for the aircraft.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
Why would they stop production? Pretty stupid to even suggest it.
I read it was a battery over temp problem. The engineers should be able to come up with a fix, why all the furor. Unless of course it is payback for building the airframes in SC..
Exactly, a stupid article to start with
A 787 has how many parts? How many systems? So a battery is showing signs of trouble, on what is a new model. You fix it and move on.
Of course a leftist outfit like CNN considers an attack on a successful capitalist enterprise like Boeing “newsworthy”.
I went on the tour of their factory in Everett WA. Amazing facility. The 787s come in one side in sections. I think the entire fuselage is about 6 sections that they basically glue together. The parts come in one side and the entire assembly moves continuously until its complete and roles out the other side ready for paint. They could probably store a few hundred 787s while the battery problem gets worked out. Not that it will take that long.
Imagine a room so big that a 787 looks small. The room for the 747 is even bigger.
What a stupid article - it coming from cnn is no surprise. IIRC, the battery issue is only when the APU is used when the plane is on the ground.
Funny how CNN wasn’t running these kind of articles when the A380 was having major structural issues with the wings and tail sections, most of which are band-aid fixed with stiffeners. Gee, let’s hope that works.
Oh, and don’t forget the myriad of electrical problems that were never really fixed. Oh no, all we heard from CNN was how it was wonderful and superior in every way to anything American-built.
Funny how we never hear about Airbus’s autopilot, which to this day kicks off without no alarm, no light, and no other indication to the aircrew. Hopefully they catch it before flying into the ground, it’s caused several crashes at night over water.
And don’t forget the supposedly superior Euro pilot training that doesn’t teach them how to successfully recover from a stall (ref. Air France 447), one of the most basic recovery procedures in Pilot 101 that there is. A pilot now knowing this is like a waitress not knowing where the coffee is.
This would let them build, sell, and fly while the Li batteries could be rigorously tested and re-engineered.
APU? What is this TLA?
Airbus did not want engine thrust reversers on the A380. They claimed that the braking system was adequate for stopping. The FAA said no so they agreed to put two on the aircraft, one per wing instead of all four.
That would be my guess.
The C5 used Ni-Cads. Small and never heard of any issues over many years of service. They recently changed them but I forgot what kind they use now.
Reminds me of the Soviets during the sixties. The tractor factory would be working overtime to produce tractor chassis-es, and the engine factory would also be working overtime producing tractor engines. The tractor tire factory would be closed because the 5 year plan did not recognize the need for tractor tires.
Boeing might consider customer acceptance issues (both passenger and airline buyer) if they continue with lithium ion batteries.
(I'm not a battery expert, so my remarks are based on hearsay and hunch.)
A very strange comparison.
I spoke to the Fire Marshall a few days ago and he said he's getting lots of calls about this 2006 incident that burned down the companys three storey building...
I had forgotten about this....
Securaplane fire cause unknown
By Brian P. Nanos, ExpNews@ExplorerNews.com
November 15, 2006 - One week after Oro Valley-based Securaplane Technologies lost its administrative building in a three-alarm fire, investigators are months away from zeroing in on the fire's cause.
Despite the loss of a building he values at $2 million, Securaplane’s President Dave Daniels claims the company is in a good position to rebuild.
A fire the morning of Nov. 7 destroyed the company's property at 10800 N. Mavinee Drive and disrupted the company's administration, sales and marketing, products support and research and development offices. The company's 138 employees also temporarily lost use of their landline phone and Internet systems.
According to Daniels, each of those offices either has little effect on the company's current business obligations or is easily transferable. Employees with offices in the burnt building are now all working in the company's other building located just across North Mavinee Drive.
Daniels said the fire had little affect on the company's ability to make its upcoming product shipments on time.
One week after the fire, investigators had yet to determine its cause. This week, inspectors representing the company's insurer, the town of Oro Valley and Golder Ranch Fire District were at the scene attempting to discover the fire's cause.
“It's not a quick issue,” Golder Ranch fire inspector Steve Hobarenko said after the first day of inspections. “It's something that's going to play out over a number of months.”
Witnesses told firefighters that the fire started in the area the company stores batteries. Early investigation on the scene confirmed the fire's location, but the cause will not be determined until all possibilities are ruled out, Hobarenko said.
John Sullivan, community services division chief of the Golder Ranch Fire District, said investigation into the cause of the fire is focusing on the possibilities that it was caused by a defective battery, defective battery charging equipment or worker error.
I think the final report blamed an improper test set-up, but the fire was large enough to destroy the building.
The one in Japan was airborne and the plane made an emergency landing.
I’m a Boeing fan, but the A380 has only 2 inboard reversers for a very good reason.
The wingspan means that reversers on the outboard engines would be stirring up FOD from the edges of the runway. and blowing that FOD forward.
So there are no reversers on the outboard engines.
Keep in mind that wet and dry braking certification is done without the use of thrust reversers. Airliners have to pass all braking tests with the brakes only.
The chargers and batteries involved in that fire are not the ones used on the 787.
It is such a stupid headline. Like saying that Boeing should stop building them because some seats don't work properly.
A battery is a minor item, morons. Keeping the battery from overheating is not rocket science. Even including double redundant monitors and safeties.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
I don’t think the Japanese really give a rip where the structure is built. They were the first to ground their fleet.
I toured the 747 facility in Everett in 1974 — it was spectacular then, too. I remember the videos of the stress tests on the wings and the take-off tests with too much rotation causing the tail to drag for a long ways down the runway (they had affixed lumber to the bottom of the rear cone for the test).
Its nice when people use acronyms properly by introducing it first
Auxiliary Power Unit. It’s a turbine generator set usually located in the tail of the aircraft. (Look for the exhaust duct the next time you’re at an airport.) On the 787 the APU produces electricity only, but they also produce pneumatic and sometimes hydraulic power on other aircraft.
It was a prototype of the battery charging system...
Same type of charger and same type of battery.
From your link, chargers not on the 787:
“and none are installed in Boeing 787 aircraft”
From here, not the same battery, chargers not on the 787:
“Boeing spokesman Marc Birtel said the 2006 fire resulted from an improper test set up, not the design of the battery. FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency investigated Mr. Leon’s complaints in 2008 and 2009. The investigation determined that the battery charging units in the complaints were prototypes, and none are installed in Boeing 787 aircraft. “
“Boeings Birtel said the batteries referenced in the correspondence between Securaplane and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration are not the specific battery type currently under NTSB investigation or subject of the FAA emergency airworthiness directive.”
There was a fire on a UPS stretch 8 (DC8). They made it down safely but the entire top off the cargo compartment burned off. A total write off. They found that it was a Li battery fire in a bunch of laptops.
Google UPS DC 8 fire, 2006, flight 1307.
I looked up the incident (it was July 06), and apparently the Li batts were under no load, and were not charging.
One suspects that the altitude change might have caused a leakage which led to an exotherm chem rxn, and thermal runaway.
And, if this is the case, then the Li batts on the (gorgeous) 787 might malfunction as a result of altitude, whether-or-not the charging would contribute to the issue.
I would hope that they look into NiCd as soon as possible, and consider the Li batt fires to be (relatively) cheap lessons.
How many laptops are there on the average jumbo flight? 50? 60? and how many of them have caught fire? Probably none is my guess.
There is something different happening than just the presence of the battery.
Those pilots deserved a medal for bringing that bird in.
On the older aircraft the battery is used for emergency power to run some systems in the event of total AC failure. You could still fly as long as you had hydraulics and engines. Battery power is used for navigation and opening valves etc.
On newer aircraft the battery is more critical because they use fly by wire which is run off electrical power. The newer batteries have to run longer and provide more power than the older (usually lead acid) batteries.
The C5 had two NiCads the size of a loaf of bread.
Are you talking about passenger laptops? If so the electrical power system are designed to only accommodate so many laptops. They use a load shedding scheme in the event of an emergency. If a laptop was to short circuit while hooked up to the aircraft system the system will dump all of them.
I think the problem is transporting batteries.
Not really, maybe next year the battery factory will produce batteries that produce currents rather than fires. But until then, crank out those airplanes that don’t fly until they get non-flamable batteries.