US grounds all Boeing 787 Dreamliners over safety concerns
46 replies, posted
[t]http://i.imgur.com/msyCl.jpg[/t]
[url]http://www.prod.kirotv.com/news/news/faa-grounding-all-boeing-787s/nTyfB/[/url]
[quote=Some obscure-ass source that will be replaced soon, but this story just broke and there aren't many articles on it yet]The Federal Aviation Administration has grounded Boeing 787s after a Dreamliner was forced to make an emergency landing in Japan.
The FAA issued this statement Wednesday afternoon:
[quote=FAA]As a result of an in-flight, Boeing 787 battery incident earlier today in Japan, the FAA will issue an emergency airworthiness directive (AD) to address a potential battery fire risk in the 787 and require operators to temporarily cease operations. 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.
The FAA will work with the manufacturer and carriers to develop a corrective action plan to allow the U.S. 787 fleet to resume operations as quickly and safely as possible.[/quote]
The in-flight Japanese battery incident followed an earlier 787 battery incident that occurred on the ground in Boston on January 7, 2013. The AD is prompted by this second incident involving a lithium ion battery. The battery failures resulted in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke on two Model 787 airplanes. The root cause of these failures is currently under investigation. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in damage to critical systems and structures, and the potential for fire in the electrical compartment.
Last Friday, the FAA announced a comprehensive review of the 787’s critical systems with the possibility of further action pending new data and information. In addition to the continuing review of the aircraft’s design, manufacture and assembly, the agency also will validate that 787 batteries and the battery system on the aircraft are in compliance with the special condition the agency issued as part of the aircraft’s certification.
United Airlines is currently the only U.S. airline operating the 787, with six airplanes in service. When the FAA issues an airworthiness directive, it also alerts the international aviation community to the action so other civil aviation authorities can take parallel action to cover the fleets operating in their own countries. [/quote]
Man, The 787 has been facing some issues since it got released.
So do most airplanes.
:(
[QUOTE=teh pirate;39247350]:([/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Chessnut;39247279]Man, The 787 has been facing some issues since it got released.[/QUOTE]
As with anything that's new to the market, however this is a pretty big issue.
It's gonna hit them hard until they can fix it, the dreamliners ain't cheap things to keep grounded.
Boeing will sort it out soon enough. They know a thing or two about large jet liners, give' em some time.
This is what I would call the "breaking-in" period.
Happens with a lot of civilian airplanes.
Every company's worst nightmare, to have a recently released product constantly be sent back for repairs.
[QUOTE=Amaurus;39247313]So do most airplanes.[/QUOTE]
They don't release airplanes like they would with desktop software. So much testing goes into it, you wouldn't believe. These machines are relied upon by millions to be safe and so they can't just release a plane with "teething problems" like a program sitting on your desktop
I hope it doesn't end up like the Concorde, where one simple repair fixes the problems but they still won't let it fly. That probably won't happen, but it'd be sad.
Aww, my plane broke. That's my favorite plane.
The A380 has had far more issues.
*cough* exploding engines *cough*
[QUOTE=Brandy92;39248659]The A380 has had far more issues.
*cough* exploding engines *cough*[/QUOTE]
That'd be more of an issue for Rolls Royce to sort out.
[QUOTE=Brandy92;39248659]The A380 has had far more issues.
*cough* exploding engines *cough*[/QUOTE]I just have a thing against the A380. Knocking the 747 off its rightful place as largest passenger airliner ever. Fuck you, Airbus.
One day Boeing is going to outgrow the 7x7 line. That'll be the day. [IMG]http://sae.tweek.us/static/images/emoticons/emot-allears.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Trumple;39248321]They don't release airplanes like they would with desktop software. So much testing goes into it, you wouldn't believe. These machines are relied upon by millions to be safe and so they can't just release a plane with "teething problems" like a program sitting on your desktop[/QUOTE]
this
the A380, for example, underwent [url="http://www.airbus.com/company/aircraft-manufacture/how-is-an-aircraft-built/test-programme-and-certification/"]2500 hours of testing[/url]
[editline]17th January 2013[/editline]
and that's only just flight tests
[editline]17th January 2013[/editline]
[url="http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25.html"]here's a list[/url] of things that generally need to be checked and passed for an airliner to be certified
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;39248949]this
the A380, for example, underwent [url="http://www.airbus.com/company/aircraft-manufacture/how-is-an-aircraft-built/test-programme-and-certification/"]2500 hours of testing[/url]
[editline]17th January 2013[/editline]
and that's only just flight tests
[editline]17th January 2013[/editline]
[url="http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25.html"]here's a list[/url] of things that generally need to be checked and passed for an airliner to be certified[/QUOTE]
It's actually really interesting. The kind of stuff they test some people might not even think of happening. Others are fairly common, like the bird strike test: [url]http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25-631.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Chinook249;39248359]I hope it doesn't end up like the Concorde, where one simple repair fixes the problems but they still won't let it fly. That probably won't happen, but it'd be sad.[/QUOTE]
Well besides the problem, the Concorde just wasn't economically viable. By the time of retirement, Air France had flights with <10 paying passengers.
[QUOTE=Apache249;39248945]One day Boeing is going to outgrow the 7x7 line. That'll be the day. [IMG]http://sae.tweek.us/static/images/emoticons/emot-allears.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Start with the 8x8 line! :smile:
[QUOTE=gaboer;39249160]Well besides the problem, the Concorde just wasn't economically viable. By the time of retirement, Air France had flights with <10 paying passengers.[/QUOTE]
That must have been awesome to be one of the passengers. Lightning fast flight with nobody on it :v:
This whole 787 business has just been one big [I]nightmare[/I].
Why doesn't American airlines just use A380s?
[QUOTE=shian;39252994]Why doesn't American airlines just use A380s?[/QUOTE]
For the same reason they don't use 747's. They don't need them. They have 777's which can hold over 400 people, and have longer range. Besides, American Airlines not using Boeing? What a FUCK YOU to America that would be. Boeing is a business, a private company started from a garage in the USA. Airbus is not, nor American
I don't like Airbus for the fact that all of the major pieces of an Airbus are made by someone different, transported, and then assembled
[QUOTE=Chinook249;39250546]Start with the 8x8 line! :smile:
That must have been awesome to be one of the passengers. Lightning fast flight with nobody on it :v:[/QUOTE]
And now people think I'm bipolar.
[QUOTE=shian;39252994]Why doesn't American airlines just use A380s?[/QUOTE]
because airbus is awful
I don't get why they've grounded the 787 when they never grounded the A380. I mean sure, battery fires can be a serious problem if they aren't dealt with quickly, but losing a whole goddamn engine in flight? Nah that's fine let it fly.
Fun fact: Boeing didn't even manufacture the part that's having the most problems, the onboard battery. So I wouldn't be surprised if YUASA are getting a load of shit from Boeing right now.
[QUOTE=Brandy92;39248659]The A380 has had far more issues.
*cough* exploding engines *cough*[/QUOTE]
One engine exploded because of a oil leak and all trent 900 engines have been fixed. That is the extent of the reportable a380's incidents. There were also cracks reported on the wings but they have to get extremely large before they become a actual real threat to the aircraft. That has also been fixed.
Lets go over the 787 incident list (that involve life threatening situations):
November 9 2010: In flight fire in the electrical bay (this was during its testing and shakedown)
January 7 2013: Battery overheat and possible thermal runaway in a battery compartment (JAL)
January 8 2013: Fuel leak (JAL)
January 8 2013: Wiring problems in the area around the battery compartment that caught fire on the JAL plane. (UNITED)
January 11 2013: Cockpit window cracked on one plane while another suffered a fuel leak (ANA)
--At this point the FAA calls for a investigation at Boeing's plants to look over how the plane was being made
January 13 2013: Fuel leak (JAL)
January 16 2013: Emergency landing and evacuation after smoke indication and smell in the cockpit and cabin. JAL and ANA grounds 24 787 out of the 50 in service. The FAA then issues a emergency airworthiness directive that grounds 9 more dreamliners. The EASA also grounds 2.
Total grounded 787 today: 41 out of 50
Total grounded a380 today: 0 (there were atleast 3 grounded while they investigated the engine problems [one until it was repaired and the others were grounded until they were checked out by EADS/Airbus. Singapore Airlines put theirs back into service the next day while Qantas kept theirs on the ground after finding another plane with a problem.])
Now, the FAA is really not ok with Lithium Ion batteries on airplanes because when they begin thermal runaway, they love to explode, cause fires, spew out dangerous smoke, and make everything around them hot. More than likely Boeing is going to have to replace all batteries in all the planes with new ones that don't explode all the time and cause problems with the wiring.
[editline]17th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Yellowamoeba;39253184]I don't get why they've grounded the 787 when they never grounded the A380. I mean sure, battery fires can be a serious problem if they aren't dealt with quickly, but losing a whole goddamn engine in flight? Nah that's fine let it fly.
Fun fact: Boeing didn't even manufacture the part that's having the most problems, the onboard battery. So I wouldn't be surprised if YUASA are getting a load of shit from Boeing right now.[/QUOTE]
A engine is designed to contain a blade-off event without it shooting out of the engine. Qantas and SIA DID ground their fleet when that happened. Singapore Airlines checked them out and put it back out into service the next day. Qantas saw another issue with another plane and decided to keep them grounded for awhile longer before returning the ones not affected back into service while keeping the accident and problem planes on the ground until Airbus could figure out the problem. All the Trent 900 engines have been fixed now and its fine.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;39253022]For the same reason they don't use 747's. They don't need them. They have 777's which can hold over 400 people, and have longer range. Besides, American Airlines not using Boeing? What a FUCK YOU to America that would be. Boeing is a business, a private company started from a garage in the USA. Airbus is not, nor American
I don't like Airbus for the fact that all of the major pieces of an Airbus are made by someone different, transported, and then assembled[/QUOTE]
What, just because its not American they can't use em?
What's with the sense of pride?
To be honest, I'm going to avoid these planes at all costs.
[QUOTE=Naaz;39248750]I just have a thing against the A380. Knocking the 747 off its rightful place as largest passenger airliner ever. Fuck you, Airbus.[/QUOTE]Oh come on, now more people can sit upstairs... on an aeroplane.
[editline]17th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=TheTalon;39253022]For the same reason they don't use 747's. They don't need them. They have 777's which can hold over 400 people, and have longer range. Besides, American Airlines not using Boeing? What a FUCK YOU to America that would be. Boeing is a business, a private company started from a garage in the USA. Airbus is not, nor American
I don't like Airbus for the fact that all of the major pieces of an Airbus are made by someone different, transported, and then assembled[/QUOTE]Get some high speed trains then, like Europe.
[QUOTE=shian;39253474]What, just because its not American they can't use em?
What's with the sense of pride?[/QUOTE]
It's American Airlines. It would sort of be like Soccer being called Soccer instead of football in Europe. It would be bad for their image! You don't want to be American Airlines, but use Airbus instead of Boeing, that would just be preposterous!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.