Grounding av 787

787 er vel fortsatt et bra fly selv etter at man har fått ordnet et pålitelig batterisystem. Jeg vil anta at interessen for 787 vil være den samme, men at det kan bli en kostnads-smell som går til Boeing.
 
Boeing lär inte sälja många nya 787 innan batteriproblemen är lösta.
Uttalanden från FAA chefen indikerar att det troligen kommer ta lång tid.
Jag tror framförallt Airbus A330 och Boeing 777-300ER kommer fortsätta sälja bra under 2013.
 
Boeing 777 er et betydelig større fly en Boring 787, så jeg tror ikke at Boeing 787 vil gå ut over salget av Boeing 777.
 
Boeing lär inte sälja många nya 787 innan batteriproblemen är lösta.
Uttalanden från FAA chefen indikerar att det troligen kommer ta lång tid.
Jag tror framförallt Airbus A330 och Boeing 777-300ER kommer fortsätta sälja bra under 2013.
Det var lidt det her jeg ville ind på.
Kan Boeing risikerere at deres nuværende og potentielle kunder mister tilliden til produktet, B787, at de vælger den fra ?
Lige nu er den jo en god sælger, men kunderne, altså flyselskaberne, ser jo også på hvordan det går..Se bare med DC10èren. Det var godt nok noget andet, men her mistede kunderne jo også tilliden til produktet.
Det er jo ikke fordi Boeing går konkurs af det her, men et nederlag for dem og tab af prestige er vel også vigtig...
Hvis Qatar, Japan Airlines og All Nippon ikke vil køben den, så har Boeing vel et større problem end de bryder sig om.
Hilsen Ole
 
Innholdet av AD (Airworthiness Directive) - instrumentet hvorved FAA ga beskjed til Operatörene ang grounding av typen 787 - er nu kjent, og er umiddelbart kommet under skarp kritikk fra kyndige observatörer som et tegn for hvordan i praktikken FAA lar seg fjernstyres under press fra Boeing. Sist en amerikansk flytype ble grounded av FAA (DC-10 i 1979) ble AC (airworthiness certificate) inndratt, noe som logisk krever re-sertifisering av fly-typen dvs ny AC, en tungvindt prosess som gir ansvaret til OEM ... mens i januar 2013 har FAA utstedt en enkel AD, som normalt henviser til en tilsvarende fix-directive som gjör at Operatörene kan deretter selv gjennomföre fixen etter instruksjoner fra OEM, sä blir flyene gode for service, uten videre innblanding fra de pärörtes Airworthiness Authorities. Isäfall legges ansvaret for utföring av fixen etter boken pä Operatörens skuldre. Greit, ikke sant ?
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...ed-emergency-ad-inappropriate-case-boeing-787
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetal...ed-for-being-captive-of-boeing-in-787-crisis/
 
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020500473_ntsb787xml.html
NTSB report on 787 coming Thursday
The NTSB will issue an interim report Thursday on the lithium ion battery fire in January aboard a parked Boeing 787 Dreamliner
............
There’s no indication that the interim report will provide an answer, though it may make clearer whether or not a definitive cause is likely to be identified later.

The report is “factual in nature and does not provide any analysis,” the NTSB said in a statement Wednesday.

Boeing’s 787s have been grounded since Jan. 16, when a second battery overheated and smoldered during an All Nippon Airways flight in Japan a week after the incident at Logan.

Boeing has proposed a fix for the battery problem — which, in the absence of a known root cause, attempts to address all possible battery system malfunctions. The company is awaiting approval from the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) to implement that fix.

The FAA is expected to give its initial response late this week or early next.


Litt skriverier om main distributin panel men tror ikke det kommer ha store konsekvenser
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...urned-on-ana-planes-last-year-union-says.html
All Nippon Airways Co. (9202), the biggest operator of Boeing Co. (BA) 787s, repaired three damaged circuit boards last year on Dreamliners, the aircraft that was grounded worldwide this year after lithium-ion batteries caught fire.

Of three circuit boards that burned, one that was damaged in April had to be replaced, Shozo Tsue, secretary general of the Japan Federation of Aviation Workers’ Unions, told reporters in Tokyo today. ANA fixed three circuit boards last year safely before flights, Megumi Tezuka, an ANA spokeswoman said by telephone.

Tsue said he doesn’t know whether there is a link between circuit-board damage and the battery fires and that he has sent a letter to the nation’s transport minister asking that “issues” uncovered in the 787 be reconsidered. Boeing’s Dreamliners have yet to fly commercially after the January grounding, the first time in 34 years an entire airplane model has been pulled from service.

“The circuit board case on April 7 was serious and caused damage to the surrounding area,” Tsue said.

Investigators have yet to say they’ve found the causes of a lithium-ion battery fire on a Japan Airlines Co.-operated Dreamliner in Boston in January and that for an emergency landing of an ANA 787 later that month.
 
External observations of the battery involved in this incident showed, among other things, that the right side of the battery case appeared to have the most extensive damage of the four battery sides.3 Disassembly of the battery revealed that the cells that were located in the left side of the battery (cells 1 through 4) generally exhibited the least thermal and mechanical damage and that the cells that were located in the right side of the battery (cells 5 through 8) generally exhibited the most thermal and mechanical damage. Thermal damage was the most severe near cell 6. Continuity measurements using a digital volt meter indicated that all of the cells were found to be electrically short circuited except for cell 8.
-----------------------
Appendix Appendix —Boeing 787 Type Certific Boeing 787 Type Certific Boeing 787 Type Certific Boeing 787 Type Certific Boeing 787 Type CertificBoeing 787 Type Certific Boeing 787 Type Certific ation ation Special Conditions Special Conditions Special Conditions Special Conditions Special Conditions 25 -359 359-SC
The FAA issued the following nine special conditions, in place of the electrical equipment and installation requirements of 14 CFR 25.1353(c)(1) through (c)(4), for the design and installation of lithium-ion batteries as part of the type certification basis for the Boeing 787-8:
(1) Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained during any foreseeable charging or discharging condition and during any failure of the charging or battery monitoring system not shown to be extremely remote. The lithium ion battery installation must preclude explosion in the event of those failures.
(2) Design of the lithium-ion batteries must preclude the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature or pressure.
(3) No explosive or toxic gases emitted by any lithium-ion battery in normal operation, or as the result of any failure of the battery charging system, monitoring system, or battery installation not shown to be extremely remote, may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.
(4) Installations of lithium-ion batteries must meet the requirements of 14 CFR 25.863(a) through (d).
(5) No corrosive fluids or gases that may escape from any lithium-ion battery may damage surrounding structure or any adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring of the airplane in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 25.1309(b) and applicable regulatory guidance.
(6) Each lithium-ion battery installation must have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery can generate during a short circuit of the battery or of its individual cells.
(7) Lithium-ion battery installations must have a system to control the charging rate of the battery automatically, so as to prevent battery overheating or overcharging, and,
39
(i) A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition, or,
(ii) A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of battery failure.
(8) Any lithium-ion battery installation whose function is required for safe operation of the airplane must incorporate a monitoring and warning feature that will provide an indication to the appropriate flight crewmembers whenever the state-of-charge of the batteries has fallen below levels considered acceptable for dispatch of the airplane.
(9) The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness required by 14 CFR 25.1529 must contain maintenance requirements for measurements of battery capacity at appropriate intervals to ensure that batteries whose function is required for safe operation of the airplane will perform their intended function as long as the battery is installed in the airplane. The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness must also contain procedures for the maintenance of lithium-ion batteries in spares storage to prevent the replacement of batteries whose function is required for safe operation of the airplane with batteries that have experienced degraded charge retention ability or other damage due to prolonged storage at a low state of charge.
The FAA noted that these special conditions were “not intended to replace 14 CFR 25.1353(c) in the certification basis of the Boeing 787-8 airplane” and that the special conditions applied “only to lithium-ion batteries and their installations.” The FAA also noted that the requirements of 14 CFR 25.1353(c) remained in effect “for batteries and battery installations of the Boeing 787-8 airplane that do not use lithium-ion batteries.”
Raporten på 48 sider kan leses i sin helhet på
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013/boeing_787/interim_report_B787_3-7-13.pdf
 
Last edited:
FAA skal nå ha godkjent planen til Boeing for fix ser jeg fra flere steder.
Så det kan se ut som det går riktige veien.

Nå skal det testes masse så får en se resultatet av de før endelig konklusjon.

S
 
FAA skal nå ha godkjent planen til Boeing for fix ser jeg fra flere steder.
Så det kan se ut som det går riktige veien.

Ja, en kilde:
Boeing (NYSE: BA) has received approval from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the company's plan to test and certify improvements to the 787's battery system. Successful completion of each step within the plan will result in the FAA's approval to resume commercial 787 flights.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2619
 
To fly skal brukes i testprogrammet. ZA005, som var en av testmaskinene, og l/n 86, som skal til LOT.
 
Jeg tar hatten av for de amerikanske ingeniörene ! : de har prestert ä ganske enkelt "engineer the search for the root cause" ut av battery fix-pakken, sä "root-cause" er blitt helt utelatt i FAAs re-sertifiserings-kriterier. Gratulerer, folkens ! Her er det kun snakk om ä holde lokket pä kjelen, intet sies om ingrediensene til lappskausen ? (kilde: keesje c/o LeeHam.net, comment #16)
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324281004578356721394267926.html

Jon Ostrower i WSJ (söketips : gä gjennom Google med ' FAA Gives Nod to Boeing Plan for Battery Fix ') analyserer FAA's klarering for gjenopptagelse av 787 flight tests. Han er bl.a. "ikke sikker" pä at japanske JTSB vil gi automatisk samtykke dvs selv klarere 787 i Japan hvis/när (en gang i - äpent tidsvindu, etter mai-juni, eller kanskje "i sommer" ?) FAA sender 787 tilbake i drift. Videre mener han at det ikke er umulig at andre - videre - krav kan evtlt bli stilt pä et senere tidspunkt fra FAA, siden NTSB/FAA har ikke gitt opp arbeidet med ä finne ut av batteri-feilen, mens Boeing pä sin side begynner med ä prövefly sin quick-fix ...
 
Det er klart at det viktigste nå ikke nødvendigvis er å finne en permanent løsning, men en trygg 'fix' for at man kan få kjerrene i trafikk igjen. Da vil man også få ro på seg til å analysere dette grundig og komme opp med en løsning som tilfredsstiller alle for resten av flyenes levetid. Dette vil da også 'redde' A350 og andre flytyper som er aktuelle for den samme batteriteknologien.
 
Det er blitt lagt frem saklig bevis c/o LeeHam.net pä at Boeing og FAA var fullt oppmerksomme pä brannfaren m.m. mht Lithium-ion batteriene, da bl.a. en arbeidsgruppe av industri-representanter ble nedsatt i 2011 for ä re-definere sertifiserings-krav (hvorav tung testing) for denne typen equipment, med tidsramme for konklusjoner satt til april 2013. Det viser seg at hendelsene har forbikjört denne TaskForce. Moralen i dette er at (1) FAAs og/eller Boeings 'overraskelse' mht til batteri-affaeren er teatrisk; (2) det foreligger pr. idag et fullt sett nesten-ferdige rekommendasjoner for nye regler for testing/sertifisering av batterier/tlihörende systemer som langt overgär definisjonen av Boeing's nye QuickFix superbox (bl.a. önskes det at batterienes ytrings-evner skal testes mot svekkelse etter 12 mndrs passiv lagring !!) ; (3) det kan se ut som at Boeings plan med nevnte TaskForce har vaert ä ville ramme A350 med nye sertifiserings-krav aktivert gjennom FAA noen mäneder/uker för Airbus legger inn söknad om sertifisering av A350; og (4) spillet med AD + Fix Directive pälagt Boeing (istedenfor direkt inndragelse av AC) sikter ä selv IKKE rammes av de nye reglene, selv om Boeing, Yuasa, FAA og andre pärörte tydeligvis har arbeidet iherdig siden 2011 med ä re-definere 787 batteri-systemet ... bare det at Murphy-loven har kjört forbi spillet i kulissene hos FAA, pä en mäte som har avduket Boeings underhändenhet ...

http://www.rtca.org/CMS_DOC/225Sum03- Final 2011.pdf
 
Last edited:
Jeg tror vi trygt kan si to måneder før testflyvninger er gjennomført, data er analysert og FAA gir Boeing tillatelse til å gjenoppta programmet. Så skal maskinene modifiseres, og ettersom det må lages hull i skroget, er nok neppe dette noen fem-minutters jobb ...

Da snakker vi minimum fem måneders forsinkelse i forhold til planlagt leveringsdato. For DY snakker vi da fort oktober.
 
Men samtidig har Boeing fortsatt produksjonen av 787, så dette burde ha lite betydning for leveranser som er planlagt om 12-18 måneder?
 
Back
Top