7 ms·

US FAA Grounds Boeing 787 Over Battery Concerns

84 points by jordanbaucke 14y ago

akg_67 14y ago
I have traveled few times on ANA's 787 between Narita/Tokyo and Seattle. While sitting in emergency exit row at window seat, I could feel that the floor in front of the seat was unusually hot. After seeing location of the fire in pictures of JAL's 787, I get the impression that the emergency exit row seat was just above the cargo bay where fire originated. I am glad that ANA 787 I was on didn't catch fire. I am glad to finally see FAA making a decision to ground 787. I hope 787 don't fly until these issues are resolved.
- jrockway 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111
  - rorrr 14y ago
    In-flight fires cause many many crashes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airtours_Flight_28M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airtours_Flight_28M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Airways_Flight_295 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Airways_Flight_2... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudia_Flight_163 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudia_Flight_163
qnk 14y ago
Will this affect non-US airlines that flight to the U.S.? A 787 from a Polish airline (LOT) is about to land in Chicago. Will it be allowed to fly back to Poland with passengers on board? http://fr24.com/LOT3 http://fr24.com/LOT3
- dkl 14y ago
  I imagine that since it's on US soil, no. The FAA has jurisdiction here.
  - binarycrusader 14y ago
    The fine article addresses this point: Before further flight, operators of U.S.-registered, Boeing 787 aircraft must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the batteries are safe and in compliance So is it a "U.S.-registered" aircraft? And even if it is, it sounds like there may be a flight delay of hours at worst.
    - zerovox 14y ago
      LOT aircraft are registered in Poland, so they shouldn't have problems with the FAA.
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        If you want to enter US airpspace or even fly to Canada, Mexico or even Colombia the FAA will most likely have a say in it.
    - eduardordm 14y ago
      So, it seems that the aircraft certifications are still valid, just the batteries need to be checked. That's just a immediate service bulletin then.
  - lutorm 14y ago
    FAA airworthiness directives don't apply to all aircraft, only to those that are US-registered under certain categories.
- itsmeduncan 14y ago
  This directive will allow the airlines to have DER-type people give permission for pilots to fly them to their home. This happens a lot with airplanes with issues.
tocomment 14y ago
Does anyone know why the 787 seems to have gone so wrong? Wasn't it tremendously delayed and then it seems like I'm hearing about problem after problem? Is this a sign our civilization is in technological decay and we're losing our ability to build advanced machinery?
- sbierwagen 14y ago
  1.) General consensus is "too many outside contractors, not enough QA." Outsourcing taken too far, essentially. 2.) No.
  - gvb 14y ago
    1+) The 787 was three BHAGs[1] in terms of... a) Fuel economy: drove the primarily composite structure (causing much angst during development), drove using the lighter weight lithium batteries which is the current issue, etc. A 20% fuel improvement is incredibly ambitious goal (I say is because last I heard they were still falling short, although still remarkable at ~15%(?)). b) Cost (sharing): drove the huge number of outside contractors, all or most of whom invested a substantial amount of their own money in the pieces parts that they designed and built for the 787. c) Schedule. Total miss. The schedule was predicated on no major problems... in hindsight the (a) and (b) BHAGs guaranteed the schedule miss. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal
    - yread 14y ago
      ANA said in a statement that their 787s are 21% more fuel efficient per seat than a 767
  - hef19898 14y ago
    Additional remark to point 1): Back then before Boeing got all the trouble they had with the immense outsourcing, this approach was seen as THE way to go in supply chain management for highly complex products. Some parts of EADS still used the B787 programme as a model of suppliers and contract management last year. After Boeing was obliged to buy out a couple of there joint-ventures and suppliers. Completely agree on the fact that the Dreamliner wanted to much things at the same time. I only beg to differ on the "not enough QA" part. I don't exactly know how Boeings QA looks like, but assume that aerospace QA is more or less similar in the western world since everyone is dealing with the FAA and JAA in one way or the other. And from my experience it's not "not enough" QA but the wrong QA. In some parts of supplier related QA the point was reached where people cared more about paper work and certificates (to the point where the use of ";" instead of "," in a text field blocked whole deliveries for days) than the actual part. And further assume that the paperwork of what ever part in flying piece of tech that failed was ok. Downside is, the more time QA spends on paer work the less time QA spends on assuring the parts are good. Not that this is a probale cause for the battery issue on hand, so.
bsimpson 14y ago
How long until United stops running the 787 ad at the beginning of every flight?
- jdavis703 14y ago
  Just flew United on the 14th and didn't see the ad.
robomartin 14y ago
OK, from the horse's mouth: http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=14233 http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId... And here's a good document dealing with Lithium-Ion battery hazards: http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/research/rflithiumionbatterieshazard.pdf http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/research/rflithiumionba... I have a lot of experience with Lithium Polymer batteries as I fly eletric-powered radio-controlled helicopters and planes that use them. There are always reports of LiPo (as they are commonly known) packs puffing-up and sometimes catching on fire and even exploding (more like the popping of a pop-corn bag except that you have flames shooting out of it). I have personally exploded a small 3S (three cells in series) pack just to see the mechanism and the magnitude of the effect. I have to say that it took a LOT of work to explode the pack. I over-charged it to a ridiculous degree. Now, of course, there are also reports of packs catching on fire for no apparent reason at all. There are many explanations out there. The best I came across was from a PhD Chemist who explained it something like this (paraphrasing, of course): When these batteries are assembled there's moisture in the surrounding environment. And, while moisture is kept in check, some of it stays in the pack. They can't run a super-dry environment because it could be very dangerous. One of the electrodes is lithium-oxide infused in carbon. Lithium reacts with water, which gives you hydrogen. Carbon reacts with hydrogen to give you methane. As methane is generated the cell puff-up. If thermal runaway is triggered through other mechanisms and the methane ignites: kaboom! I keep about thirty LiPo packs in strong locked and vented steel container (heavy toolbox) in the garage away from flammable materials and flame sources. When we go to the flying field the same container is used to transport to the field. While at the field the container is always locked and, if possible, removed from the car. I have never had an incident I did not cause. As far as the Boeing issues. Hard to say from the outside. It could boil down to quality issues at their battery supplier. It is probably impossible to perform a full inspection on these kinds of batteries on delivery. How do you determine if there's too much moisture inside a sealed package?
- refurb 14y ago
  I think your PhD chemist needs to rethink his theory. Lithium oxide is not the same as lithium metal. Lithium metal reactions with water to create hydrogen and heat, but lithium oxide is a salt. It generates no hydrogen when it contacts water, but it might generate some heat. Carbon will react with hydrogen to give you methane, but not with the conditions inside the battery. You need a ton of pressure, heat and some catalyst to do that. After reading the wikipedia article, apparently the cathode can actually produce oxygen which may explain the bursting of the cells.
minimax 14y ago
They are shooting for a 330 minute ETOPS for the 787. That means a plane can be up to 6.5 hours from the closest airport on long haul flights. ETOPS has more to do with engine reliability than fire safety, but I can't help wonder if this will affect things. Incidentally, I flew on two United 787s in December and I thought they were fantastic planes. The electrochromic windows were a real treat.
- kgermino 14y ago
  5.5 hours? Or is there an extra hour there above the ETOPS rating?
  - minimax 14y ago
    Woops you're right. Math failure on my part.
rit 14y ago
Just a random piece of pedantry; the article states that Poland's LOT is the only european airline operating the 787 right now. I was at Heathrow maybe 90 days ago and British Airways had a brand new 787 (Painted in fancy "Dreamliner" dress and BA logo) parked at a gate as if it was in use. Might be that they were still demoing it/showing it off deliberately but I had the impression it was an active aircraft.
- mootothemax 14y ago
  I'm a bit suspicious that I can't find a press release from BA about receiving delivery of a 787, and that BA's site doesn't mention it being in their fleet: http://www.britishairways.com/travel/bafleet/public/en_gb http://www.britishairways.com/travel/bafleet/public/en_gb Given how LOT only received their first order halfway through November, which was widely announced as being Europe's first 787 delivery (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-lot-takes-delivery-of-europes-first-787-379060/ http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-lot-takes-...), I think your skepticism is misplaced.
- yardie 14y ago
  The crew haven't been trained on it yet so I don't think it was in service. If anything it was probably a meet and greet where the executives (and staff) can walk around the cabin to get a feel for it. They run their entire operation out of T5 now so getting a an unused gate for a 787 wouldn't be impossible. Other airlines are still jockeying for gate space at T1-T4.
  - rit 14y ago
    And it was Terminal 5, so that makes sense. It looks like they're not getting their 787s (and an order of 'superjumbo' A380s) until this year. A training/demo aircraft makes sense. Not to mention free advertising people like me, sitting in a window seat, seeing that beautiful new aircraft with "DREAMLINER" painted across her body. Granted, BA is the only Airline besides Virgin Atlantic/America where I have felt like I was treated like a human being... so convincing me to fly on them isn't that difficult.
mootothemax 14y ago
There's a nice interactive guide to the 787's reported problems on the Guardian's site today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/interactive/2013/jan/11/boeing-787-dreamliner-faults-interactive http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/interactive/2013/jan/11/b...

84 points by jordanbaucke 14y ago

I have traveled few times on ANA's 787 between Narita/Tokyo and Seattle. While sitting in emergency exit row at window seat, I could feel that the floor in front of the seat was unusually hot. After seeing location of the fire in pictures of JAL's 787, I get the impression that the emergency exit row seat was just above the cargo bay where fire originated. I am glad that ANA 787 I was on didn't catch fire. I am glad to finally see FAA making a decision to ground 787. I hope 787 don't fly until these issues are resolved.

jrockway 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111
- rorrr 14y ago
  In-flight fires cause many many crashes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airtours_Flight_28M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airtours_Flight_28M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Airways_Flight_295 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Airways_Flight_2... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudia_Flight_163 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudia_Flight_163

qnk 14y ago

Will this affect non-US airlines that flight to the U.S.? A 787 from a Polish airline (LOT) is about to land in Chicago. Will it be allowed to fly back to Poland with passengers on board? http://fr24.com/LOT3 http://fr24.com/LOT3

dkl 14y ago
I imagine that since it's on US soil, no. The FAA has jurisdiction here.
- binarycrusader 14y ago
  The fine article addresses this point: Before further flight, operators of U.S.-registered, Boeing 787 aircraft must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the batteries are safe and in compliance So is it a "U.S.-registered" aircraft? And even if it is, it sounds like there may be a flight delay of hours at worst.
  - zerovox 14y ago
    LOT aircraft are registered in Poland, so they shouldn't have problems with the FAA.
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      If you want to enter US airpspace or even fly to Canada, Mexico or even Colombia the FAA will most likely have a say in it.
  - eduardordm 14y ago
    So, it seems that the aircraft certifications are still valid, just the batteries need to be checked. That's just a immediate service bulletin then.
- lutorm 14y ago
  FAA airworthiness directives don't apply to all aircraft, only to those that are US-registered under certain categories.
itsmeduncan 14y ago
This directive will allow the airlines to have DER-type people give permission for pilots to fly them to their home. This happens a lot with airplanes with issues.

tocomment 14y ago

Does anyone know why the 787 seems to have gone so wrong? Wasn't it tremendously delayed and then it seems like I'm hearing about problem after problem? Is this a sign our civilization is in technological decay and we're losing our ability to build advanced machinery?

sbierwagen 14y ago
1.) General consensus is "too many outside contractors, not enough QA." Outsourcing taken too far, essentially. 2.) No.
- gvb 14y ago
  1+) The 787 was three BHAGs[1] in terms of... a) Fuel economy: drove the primarily composite structure (causing much angst during development), drove using the lighter weight lithium batteries which is the current issue, etc. A 20% fuel improvement is incredibly ambitious goal (I say is because last I heard they were still falling short, although still remarkable at ~15%(?)). b) Cost (sharing): drove the huge number of outside contractors, all or most of whom invested a substantial amount of their own money in the pieces parts that they designed and built for the 787. c) Schedule. Total miss. The schedule was predicated on no major problems... in hindsight the (a) and (b) BHAGs guaranteed the schedule miss. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal
  - yread 14y ago
    ANA said in a statement that their 787s are 21% more fuel efficient per seat than a 767
- hef19898 14y ago
  Additional remark to point 1): Back then before Boeing got all the trouble they had with the immense outsourcing, this approach was seen as THE way to go in supply chain management for highly complex products. Some parts of EADS still used the B787 programme as a model of suppliers and contract management last year. After Boeing was obliged to buy out a couple of there joint-ventures and suppliers. Completely agree on the fact that the Dreamliner wanted to much things at the same time. I only beg to differ on the "not enough QA" part. I don't exactly know how Boeings QA looks like, but assume that aerospace QA is more or less similar in the western world since everyone is dealing with the FAA and JAA in one way or the other. And from my experience it's not "not enough" QA but the wrong QA. In some parts of supplier related QA the point was reached where people cared more about paper work and certificates (to the point where the use of ";" instead of "," in a text field blocked whole deliveries for days) than the actual part. And further assume that the paperwork of what ever part in flying piece of tech that failed was ok. Downside is, the more time QA spends on paer work the less time QA spends on assuring the parts are good. Not that this is a probale cause for the battery issue on hand, so.

bsimpson 14y ago

How long until United stops running the 787 ad at the beginning of every flight?

jdavis703 14y ago
Just flew United on the 14th and didn't see the ad.

robomartin 14y ago

OK, from the horse's mouth: http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=14233 http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId... And here's a good document dealing with Lithium-Ion battery hazards: http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/research/rflithiumionbatterieshazard.pdf http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/research/rflithiumionba... I have a lot of experience with Lithium Polymer batteries as I fly eletric-powered radio-controlled helicopters and planes that use them. There are always reports of LiPo (as they are commonly known) packs puffing-up and sometimes catching on fire and even exploding (more like the popping of a pop-corn bag except that you have flames shooting out of it). I have personally exploded a small 3S (three cells in series) pack just to see the mechanism and the magnitude of the effect. I have to say that it took a LOT of work to explode the pack. I over-charged it to a ridiculous degree. Now, of course, there are also reports of packs catching on fire for no apparent reason at all. There are many explanations out there. The best I came across was from a PhD Chemist who explained it something like this (paraphrasing, of course): When these batteries are assembled there's moisture in the surrounding environment. And, while moisture is kept in check, some of it stays in the pack. They can't run a super-dry environment because it could be very dangerous. One of the electrodes is lithium-oxide infused in carbon. Lithium reacts with water, which gives you hydrogen. Carbon reacts with hydrogen to give you methane. As methane is generated the cell puff-up. If thermal runaway is triggered through other mechanisms and the methane ignites: kaboom! I keep about thirty LiPo packs in strong locked and vented steel container (heavy toolbox) in the garage away from flammable materials and flame sources. When we go to the flying field the same container is used to transport to the field. While at the field the container is always locked and, if possible, removed from the car. I have never had an incident I did not cause. As far as the Boeing issues. Hard to say from the outside. It could boil down to quality issues at their battery supplier. It is probably impossible to perform a full inspection on these kinds of batteries on delivery. How do you determine if there's too much moisture inside a sealed package?

refurb 14y ago
I think your PhD chemist needs to rethink his theory. Lithium oxide is not the same as lithium metal. Lithium metal reactions with water to create hydrogen and heat, but lithium oxide is a salt. It generates no hydrogen when it contacts water, but it might generate some heat. Carbon will react with hydrogen to give you methane, but not with the conditions inside the battery. You need a ton of pressure, heat and some catalyst to do that. After reading the wikipedia article, apparently the cathode can actually produce oxygen which may explain the bursting of the cells.

minimax 14y ago

They are shooting for a 330 minute ETOPS for the 787. That means a plane can be up to 6.5 hours from the closest airport on long haul flights. ETOPS has more to do with engine reliability than fire safety, but I can't help wonder if this will affect things. Incidentally, I flew on two United 787s in December and I thought they were fantastic planes. The electrochromic windows were a real treat.

kgermino 14y ago
5.5 hours? Or is there an extra hour there above the ETOPS rating?
- minimax 14y ago
  Woops you're right. Math failure on my part.

rit 14y ago

Just a random piece of pedantry; the article states that Poland's LOT is the only european airline operating the 787 right now. I was at Heathrow maybe 90 days ago and British Airways had a brand new 787 (Painted in fancy "Dreamliner" dress and BA logo) parked at a gate as if it was in use. Might be that they were still demoing it/showing it off deliberately but I had the impression it was an active aircraft.

mootothemax 14y ago
I'm a bit suspicious that I can't find a press release from BA about receiving delivery of a 787, and that BA's site doesn't mention it being in their fleet: http://www.britishairways.com/travel/bafleet/public/en_gb http://www.britishairways.com/travel/bafleet/public/en_gb Given how LOT only received their first order halfway through November, which was widely announced as being Europe's first 787 delivery (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-lot-takes-delivery-of-europes-first-787-379060/ http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-lot-takes-...), I think your skepticism is misplaced.
yardie 14y ago
The crew haven't been trained on it yet so I don't think it was in service. If anything it was probably a meet and greet where the executives (and staff) can walk around the cabin to get a feel for it. They run their entire operation out of T5 now so getting a an unused gate for a 787 wouldn't be impossible. Other airlines are still jockeying for gate space at T1-T4.
- rit 14y ago
  And it was Terminal 5, so that makes sense. It looks like they're not getting their 787s (and an order of 'superjumbo' A380s) until this year. A training/demo aircraft makes sense. Not to mention free advertising people like me, sitting in a window seat, seeing that beautiful new aircraft with "DREAMLINER" painted across her body. Granted, BA is the only Airline besides Virgin Atlantic/America where I have felt like I was treated like a human being... so convincing me to fly on them isn't that difficult.

mootothemax 14y ago

There's a nice interactive guide to the 787's reported problems on the Guardian's site today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/interactive/2013/jan/11/boeing-787-dreamliner-faults-interactive http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/interactive/2013/jan/11/b...