FAA grounds 787

Turning into the "Nightmareliner" for Boeing.
 
Why did they make it sooooooo freakin' electrically complex?
 
Sac Arrow said:
Why did they make it sooooooo freakin' electrically complex?
Click to expand...

Remove systems like bleed air (almost completely or completely...don't remember which), which means you pull less power off the engines, which means you make the plane more efficient. In theory, of course.
 
jpower said:
Remove systems like bleed air (almost completely or completely...don't remember which), which means you pull less power off the engines, which means you make the plane more efficient. In theory, of course.
Click to expand...

And no tricresyl phosphate.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Why did they make it sooooooo freakin' electrically complex?
Click to expand...

The intent with the 787 was to make it significantly more fuel efficient than its competitive aircraft, which it is. In order to do this, they use composites to make it lightweight, have an extremely wide wingspan for the number of passengers it can hold, have a new and very efficient engine, and have tried to remove as much parasitic drag from that engine as possible.

The typical bleed air taken off of the engine ends up being pretty inefficient and requiring a larger compressor to be able to handle the extra capacity for air and still run the engine.

The concept is no different from what automotive industry has seen in some cars - moving to electric accessories that can then be run at a more optimal setting, ultimately producing less drag than the mechanically-driven variants.

Boeing took a big bite with this plane, and not surprisingly, there are issues with it. They'll get them resolved. The next plane they make with similar technology will have learned lessons from this one.
 
Re: 787's grounded

What does that mean for the pilots who fly them? Obviously they are not flying that equipment, but are they stuck on the ground without pay, or are they flying something else, or just on the ground and getting paid.
 
Re: 787's grounded

ScottM said:
What does that mean for the pilots who fly them? Obviously they are not flying that equipment, but are they stuck on the ground without pay, or are they flying something else, or just on the ground and getting paid.
Click to expand...

They're sitting at home taking the monthly guarantee they get regardless of if they fly or not.
 
Re: 787's grounded

SCCutler said:
787 has common type-rating with777, differences training only, IIRC. The guys in 787s would be reasonably senior. No issues there.
Click to expand...

I bet there are a lot of differences, though.

I have heard they actually add humidity to the air. That would be most welcome!
 
Re: 787's grounded

SCCutler said:
787 has common type-rating with777, differences training only, IIRC. The guys in 787s would be reasonably senior. No issues there.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that, but not surprising.

spiderweb said:
I bet there are a lot of differences, though.

I have heard they actually add humidity to the air. That would be most welcome!
Click to expand...

Think about it like the differences between the early 310 HP Navajos and the Chieftains. Yes, there are differences, but not enough to really matter. It's common for airframers to try to make aircraft similar enough to have a single type rating to make it easier on airlines and pilots. But to do that, there need to be a bunch of similarities.

On the Q400, for instance, my understanding is that it has the same type rating as the other Dash 8 series, and that they specifically put in a few features to allow that, even though those features were unnecessary in the Q.

Added humidity and lower cabin pressure altitude are both very nice. The 787 should be a wonderful plane for passengers. Bugs happen.
 
Re: 787's grounded

spiderweb said:
I have heard they actually add humidity to the air. That would be most welcome!
Click to expand...

Not unless the system is better than the one on the 777. All of our planes that had humidifiers have been deactivated.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The intent with the 787 was to make it significantly more fuel efficient than its competitive aircraft, which it is.
Click to expand...

Mission accomplished - the entire 787 fleet is currently burning 0lbs/hr of Jet-A. :D
 
I think the forward battery powers flight computers and backup for main electrical system system if 3 alternators should fail. The aft one for starting APU and aux electrical system backup. Total aircraft power consumption is 1, 450,000 Watts, enough to power 400 homes. Geez that is a lot of power. The battery mfr is the 2nd largest in the world and these two batteries are little compared to some they mfr.
 
Re: 787's grounded

Greg Bockelman said:
Not sure what you are saying.
Click to expand...

I was operating under the presumption that, if the 787 fleet were to be grounded for an extended period (which I do not expect, but let's roll with it for the purposes of discussion), it is not as if the pilots who have been trained-up to fly them would then be left with nothing to do and furloughed.

Guess I could have just said that, eh? :D
 
Re: 787's grounded

SCCutler said:
I was operating under the presumption that, if the 787 fleet were to be grounded for an extended period (which I do not expect, but let's roll with it for the purposes of discussion), it is not as if the pilots who have been trained-up to fly them would then be left with nothing to do and furloughed.

Guess I could have just said that, eh? :D
Click to expand...

Well, they wouldn't get furloughed. What would ultimately happen if the fleet were grounded for an extended period, as in months, or longer, is the pilots would get surplussed off the 787 fleet and would have to bid something else. It isn't like they could just come over to the 777 fleet and start flying. There is a process to these things. :yes: :D
 
Re: 787's grounded

Greg Bockelman said:
Well, they wouldn't get furloughed. What would ultimately happen if the fleet were grounded for an extended period, as in months, or longer, is the pilots would get surplussed off the 787 fleet and would have to bid something else. It isn't like they could just come over to the 777 fleet and start flying. There is a process to these things. :yes: :D
Click to expand...

Sorta what I figured, but it sounds more authoritative from someone who, like, has a clue and stuff. :D
 
Re: 787's grounded

SCCutler said:
if the 787 fleet were to be grounded for an extended period (which I do not expect,
Click to expand...
I would argue there is a real danger (I pray not) that grounding could be for an extended period of time. How do you prove that batteries are "safe" and this is what FAA now requires of Boeing?? Unless you can trace those 2 batteries to a manufacturing defect that can be detected beforehand you are in an impossible situation. Is it even possible to enclose them in something absolutely fire-proof and leak-corrosion proof? If those batteries end up being replaced with something more stable, with the same type of standard batteries as say in 777 your whole charging electronics might have to be redesigned.
 
Last edited:
Re: 787's grounded

olasek said:
I would argue there is a real danger (I pray not) that grounding could be for an extended period of time. How do you prove that batteries are "safe" and this is what FAA now requires of Boeing?? Unless you can trace those 2 batteries to a manufacturing defect that can be detected beforehand you are in an impossible situation. If those batteries end up being replaced with something more stable, with the same type of standard batteries as say in 777 your whole charging electronics might have to be redesigned.
Click to expand...

Always a possibility, but I believe improbable. This may be newer technology, but it is not "bleeding edge"; I'd expect that the finite number of likely causes will yield a legitimate culprit, one susceptible of a demonstrable and conclusive repair.

Hope I'm right, in any event.
 
Re: 787's grounded

Greg Bockelman said:
Not unless the system is better than the one on the 777. All of our planes that had humidifiers have been deactivated.
Click to expand...

The planes were deactivated?

Or did you mean that all the planes that had humidifiers have had them deactivated?
 
The FAA has NEVER had enough horsepower to seriously tell Boeing NO. There are FAR too many jobs across too many congressional districts for that to happen. This is NOT going to shut down the 787 program, trust me. Although, I do wish I would have had the foresight to have shorted the battery company's stock ! As of yesterday it was down over 18% !
 
I expect Boeing had to "prove" the technology during certification, as well... so the FAA needs to review their certification standards and acceptance criteria, as issues that sneaked past the previous certification criteria have been uncovered. Now, all of these issues happening in short sequence after nearly zero issues... lifetime limits previously undetected? The investigation will help determine root cause.
 
Re: 787's grounded

SCCutler said:
but it is not "bleeding edge";
Click to expand...
True, they are in widespread use in consumer electronics but as someone wrote they are small in size and cooling is not a problem. Here one of those batteries weighs over 60 lbs. and cooling of its interior could be a problem plus it is installed on an aircraft.
 
Re: 787's grounded

SCCutler said:
Always a possibility, but I believe improbable. This may be newer technology, but it is not "bleeding edge"; I'd expect that the finite number of likely causes will yield a legitimate culprit, one susceptible of a demonstrable and conclusive repair.

Hope I'm right, in any event.
Click to expand...


In those capacities and applications it is pretty much 'bleeding edge'. The only other place you see it is in a handful of drag bikes and cars.
 
Re: 787's grounded

TangoWhiskey said:
The planes were deactivated?

Or did you mean that all the planes that had humidifiers have had them deactivated?
Click to expand...

From what I heard the humidifiers on 777 were deactivated because they were causing corrosion issues.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
I expect Boeing had to "prove" the technology during certification, as well... so the FAA needs to review their certification standards and acceptance criteria, as issues that sneaked past the previous certification criteria have been uncovered. Now, all of these issues happening in short sequence after nearly zero issues... lifetime limits previously undetected? The investigation will help determine root cause.
Click to expand...

The batteries would have had to undergo some level of cert testing. I'm not as familiar with Part 25 testing, but my thought is the battery cert would likely have been with the manufacturer of the batteries. A solution will likely come from both sides since everyone wants to get the planes back in the sky, and then the lawyers will figure out the monetary aspects of it.

If the issue is system level rather than component level, then the investigation can be longer and more drawn out. But my suspicion is that they will prove the batteries and planes do meet the legal requirements, and allow the fleet to continue flying.

Remember, this plane has been around for over a year now. It seems unlikely there's a real issue with the design, it might just be that these batteries need an inspection and replacement interval or the like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top