tip off
4

Dreamliner: Congress to examine FAA, 787 issues

This could impact the return to service of the 787, and entry into service of the comparable yet materially different Airbus A350, which is already delayed and was not expected to start commercial flights until late 2014 before the Dreamliner issues raised its exposure to similar risks

Reports that a US Senate committee will examine the FAA in relation to the certification of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner’s use of lithium ion batteries will no doubt dismay many airlines and those keen to see the new airliner show what it can do.

If there is any comfort to be had in this it is that what happens in the Senate ought not significantly divert the FAA and its Japan counterparts from pursuing a resolution of the issues that caused Japan to ground its 787s, and after a bit of silly hoop la from the US administration, for it to follow suit.

There are two inquiries underway in the US. The FAA is already reviewing the program, with an emphasis on the battery issues, but also related matters, and the NTSB is investigating the two incidents that affected a Japan Airlines 787-8 on the ground at Boston Airport as well as the emergency landing of an All Nippon Dreamliner in Japan in conjunction with Japan’s safety investigation into that incident.

The issues under question in relation to the Dreamliner being certified could be of immense importance to the airline sector in general as the plane makers increasingly seek to exploit the claimed advantages of new materials, which can be seen as extending beyond high energy lower reliability batteries and load bearing composites to new hybrid composite alloy materials, and systems advances.

It is true that all of this could seriously impact the return to service of the 787, and the entry into service of the comparable yet materially different Airbus A350, which is already delayed and  was not expected to start commercial flights until late 2014 before the Dreamliner issues raised its exposure to similar risks.

But the problems that the Dreamliner experienced come down to some unpalatable realities. It suffered two serious incidents that Boeing has said were impossible when it persuaded the FAA to allow key exceptions to the rules in its incorporation of high capacity cutting edge lithium-ion batteries, which have been used uneventfully in the A380 for more than five years, and are designed into the A350.

Boeing’s use of this battery technology is of a higher order than seen in the more conservative applications in the A380 and A350.  And there are other significant differences, as would be expected in what are three fundamentally differing designs in their size, range-payload specifications and engineering solutions.

With a backlog of more than 800 orders for 787s from eager, if not in some cases, desperate customers who need the advertised cost efficiencies of the Dreamliners, reports suggesting Boeing is seething over what it sees as an unnecessary grounding are credible.

However Boeing and the FAA have to get this right. The 787 did not behave as expected or promised in the JAL and ANA incidents. It is a jet that is intended to be flown over long distances which will including oceanic and polar routings. These issues must be resolved convincingly, and a return to flight which brings a return to these problems will have adverse consequences neither Boeing nor the airlines nor regulators could tolerate.

4

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



  • 1
    Ronnie Moore
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

    Quote:
    Boeing has told airlines it is confident of fixing battery problems on the 787 Dreamliner soon, the chief executive of Norwegian Air Shuttle said on Tuesday.

    Despite a pause in deliveries while U.S. authorities review the 787′s design, Boeing has told the Scandinavian budget carrier to expect its first 787 Dreamliner in April in line with the latest delivery schedule, Chief Executive Bjorn Kjos said.
    Unquote

    How bizarre. In the face of all public comments by the FAA and the investigations being undertaken which according to officials “will take some time”, how can Boeing go on representing to customers their aircraft will be proven safe and delivered to schedule in April???

    Is this “sales speak” for something like “we haven’t been told any different, so you can expect your aircraft when we last said you would expect them” until supposition, similar to: “we have made some improvements, so now your aircraft will be delivered in December”. Any by the way, we didn’t say what year!

  • 2
    dodger007
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 2:24 am | Permalink

    Unfortunately the battery problem is just the tip of the iceberg. I suspect far more deep rooted problems with the 787 will materialize in the not too distant future. One can only speculate now on the degree of incompetence shown by Boeing and the FAA during the certification process and how much of it was attributed to the ‘old boys act’. Perhaps the FAA as well as the 787 needs a serious overhaul.

  • 3
    wendal
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Ben, question for you.

    Is there any evidence out there that the fire on the test flight in 2010 was caused by a battery?

    I’m afraid I just don’t trust Boeing’s explanation of foreign debris in the electrical bay.

  • 4
    Ben Sandilands
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    Wendal,

    It’s a hot question to which I haven’t been able to find an answer. However it wasn’t a battery issue, but said I think reliably given the photos Boeing then suppressed it was said to have involved a high energy electrical arc in a control board in an electrical distribution bay that we could describe as being like a sub station which Boeing claimed self extinguished after the blaze spread to an insulation blanket which prevented it spreading further.

    There are consistent references to molten metal in the bay in the reports coming out of Laredo where the 787 made an emergency landing. I cannot find any reference to batteries in any of the immediately accessible reports.

    The claimed cause, foreign object damage such as metal chips, has been met with widespread doubt, partly because there is no evidence that such contamination was present. There was interestingly some casual speculation that high humidity in the electrical bay may have played a role, but many people objected to that as too speculative as well.

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...