Back to Squawk list

Report on 787 batteries assigns some blame for flaws

送信時刻:
 
Flaws in manufacturing, insufficient testing and a poor understanding of an innovative battery all contributed to the grounding of Boeing’s 787 fleet last year after a fire in one jet at Boston’s airport, according to a report released Monday by federal regulator (www.nytimes.com) さらに...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


linbb
linbb 1
It depends on which article you read but the first one posted before this one does not say it should not have been certified just this article. It says that it was not tested enough or proplerly only in the other one. Anyway this is a repost.
joelwiley
At least this one contained a link to the report itself.
preacher1
Well, although the root cause has never been identified, it says something for the fix that no publicized incidents have happened. You don't know if there was another problem found and fixed as well but whatever they did, so far it has worked. Question is, not finding the root cause, if another short occurred, would the fix stop the aftermath?
linbb
linbb 1
The root cause problem is always the one working on anything is what I always looked for. What caused the failure and they didn't find it still bothers everyone involved am sure. Like you being a pilot knows, is it going to crop up again? The Boeing hard over rudder problem was one that finally got cured after several problems and at least one crash.
preacher1
2 crashes - UAL 585 at Colorado Springs and U.S. Air 427 at Pittsburgh. The investigation into 427 was where they found the problem I think. But, you are correct, they looked and looked into 585 and couldn't find it. It had to happen again. It was about 3 years but it did happen. This could too.
indy2001
indy2001 2
Actually I believe it was a third incident -- Eastwinds Flight 517 -- that revealed the PCU as the cause of the two crashes you cited. The fact that the pilots were able to recover and land safely provided NTSB investigators with a whole aircraft and live witnesses.
preacher1
Well, I think they found the problem on 427 but did not tie them altogether until the Eastwind. That was a couple years later and after it is when Boeing did the fix.
tcmarks
Tim Marks 1
NY Times - the aviation authority in reporting - really, this article regurgitated almost 2 year old information reported from everyone else who knows and understands aviation, there is nothing new in this article from a technical perspective - the FAA was blaming the battery manufacturer 3 weeks after the first event. Yes, changes to the electrical system have been implemented to help reduce the chances of a recurrence, but keep in mind the battery system is a 'last resort' source of electrical energy on the aircraft and cannot be completely shut down in certain circumstances. All AC and DC power sources are prioritized on commercial aircraft and when you are down to the RAT and batteries you had better be on final approach to your alternate airport.
preacher1
On the 787, the batteries are not last resort. They are PRIMARY on some functions. That was one reason for the grounding.
tcmarks
Tim Marks 0
Actually, the AC power source from the engine generators and the APU are primary power sources in normal operation - DC power is derived from the AC power thru inverter/converters and charges the batteries. The only time DC power is primary in normal operation is during initial power up using the batteries to start the APU or an engine, once an AC source is on line it becomes the primary power source on the aircraft. In the opposite order, if all AC power sources are lost on the aircraft, engine & APU generators, then the RAT (ram air turbine) is deployed to provide AC power for fligth critical systems and the battery DC system will serve as backup as the last source of electrical power on the aircraft. This is an overly simplified explanation, since the full system and normal/abnormal operation is much more complicated than this.
preacher1
I know all about that. Your description of normal aircraft operation is 100% correct, BUT, the 787 was a total departure from that, which was a reason for the grounding, a worry that such a thermal runaway in mid flight would cause a catastrophe as they were a PRIMARY power source. I'm thinking they were kept charged after engine start but as a primary power source, were not replaced and drop off line as normal. This was one of Boeing's better ideas. Now, I'll qualify by saying that I never flew one, having retired before it took to the skies. This is just from manuals and friends in the industry that did fly it.
preacher1
Just for what its worth, in 41 years of flying, with 23 of that in a 757, never did have to drop the RAT. Don't know if it was luck or good mx. LOL
btweston
btweston 1
You're right. News agencies shouldn't report anything. We should just think whatever we want.
tcmarks
Tim Marks 1
bt, not quite sure you caught my sarcasm, but the NYT is not an aviation news rporting authority. They should stick to politics and religion and leave the aviation world to those who live in it every day, live AVWeek, Janes, Flight Aware and all the other aviation-centric news agancies. But sure, everyone is entitled to think about issues anyway they wish and formulate their own opinions. I have never been a fan of NYT and seeing information that is well over a year old presented as new source info reinforces my disdain for non-aviation news reporting on the aviation world.
preacher1
They might do well in politics but I don't think you ought to arbitrarily throw religion in there with that. LOL
jet757f
They were having problems with NiCad batteries with thermal runaway. They would overheat and cause fire. They fitted aircraft with thermal relief switch to prevent this.
fedexman2
Anybody watch "Broken Dreams' on Al Jazeerah USA. I watched it on YouTube. Curious what your thoughts will be when you watch it.
RRKen
Poor understanding of an innovative battery? Five years before it flew, those batteries were known to burn due to cell damage. Where the design engineers living under rocks?
joelwiley
They probably were living in houses much like you and I. After reading thru the report, it seems to me it may have been a matter of the engineers heading into unknown territory. It sounds like they were heading into unknown territory and made assumptions about end-point conditions that, in retrospect, did not match the actual conditions. Sort of like the design conditions for Galloping Gertie, the ill-fated Tacoma Narrows Bridge.
zainulp
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

NTSB criticize Boeing, FAA for Boeing 787 Boston fire incident

The NTSB has criticized FAA and Boeing in its final report into the Boeing 787 Boston fire incident, released today for the incident.


http://www.aviationanalysis.net/2014/12/ntsb-critisize-boeing-faa-boeing-boston-787-fire-incident.html
MH370
MH370 1
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Design Flaws Led To Boeing 787 Battery Fire

A lithium-ion battery that caught fire aboard a parked Boeing 787 in 2013 in Boston had design flaws and should not have been certified by the FAA, the NTSB said on Monday.

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1417483084.html
Moviela
The root of the problem is the secrecy of all relevant engineering and design details of the battery. Every step in the process discloses the bare minimum to suppliers and manufacturers. It did not used to be that way in airplane making. To discover defects after two fires is not acceptable and the FAA should shoulder some of the blame for allowing secret formulas and processes to be used.

As the level of tech increases, the overlords must hire the brightest from MIT, Berkeley, Caltech and the like to review the full details and advise regulators and legislators on what path to follow to ensure the public safety.
joelwiley
One problem is that the brightest and the best have been funneled into the finance sector to find new ways of making money in ways that, to say the least, do not support improving the overall physical, technological, and societal infrastructure.
Moviela
You are 100% correct. I shake my head when I see banks and brokerages recruiting at engineering schools with huge offers. I can understand they might need a few mathematicians, but why does a bank need an aeronautical engineer?

ログイン

アカウントをお持ちではありませんか? 今すぐ登録(無料)!機能やフライトアラート、その他様々な設定をカスタマイズできます!