daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Airports and Aviation

Airports and Aviation » Airports | Photos and Videos



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 24th, 2013, 08:39 PM   #1561
EK413
Registered User
 
EK413's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,891
Likes (Received): 1895

For those looking for official news, the next NTSB update regarding the JAL 787 Boston investigation will be at a press conference scheduled for 2:30pm EST on Thursday, Jan 24. Photography will be allowed during the lab tour where the battery is being examined.

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130123.html
__________________
EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
EK413 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 24th, 2013, 11:57 PM   #1562
Space Invader
Registered Alien
 
Space Invader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris / Southampton (New Forest)
Posts: 408
Likes (Received): 193

Well this conference is not really a good sign, they seem to have no idea about the causes, and as long as they won't know, we're not gonna see any 787 in the sky.
__________________
EU CITIZEN
PARIS SAINT GERMAIN
Space Invader no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2013, 04:25 PM   #1563
Pedro EM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 336
Likes (Received): 51

Apparently someone said the process is about 3 to 4 weeks.
Pedro EM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2013, 04:53 PM   #1564
Pedro EM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 336
Likes (Received): 51

NTSB’s methodical probe means longer grounding for Boeing 787

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...updatexml.html


Air-safety experts said the Federal Aviation Administration isn’t likely to lift its order grounding the 787 quickly, given the NTSB’s lack of progress toward finding the root cause of the battery problems.
t looks like Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner fleet, grounded worldwide for the past week, won’t be airborne soon.

The recent fire in a lithium-ion battery aboard a parked Japan Airlines (JAL) 787 in Boston “is a very serious air-safety event,” National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said Thursday in a briefing on the agency’s investigation.

“We do not expect to see fire events on board aircraft,” she told reporters at the agency’s Washington, D.C., offices.

But the inquiry is far from determining the cause of the fire. “We have not yet ruled anything out,” Hersman said. “There’s a lot more work to be done.”

Air-safety experts said the Federal Aviation Administration isn’t likely to quickly lift its order grounding the 787, given the NTSB’s lack of progress toward finding the root cause and Hersman’s blunt warning.

Former NTSB member John Goglia said Boeing is in limbo until the board can pinpoint the cause of both the Jan. 7 Japan Airlines fire and the overheated battery that forced an emergency landing of an All Nippon Airways (ANA) 787 in Japan a week later.

“They’ve got to find the smoking gun,” said Goglia. “If there’s no definitive cause, this airplane is going to be down for a while.”

“Months, not weeks”

Jim Hall, a former head of the NTSB, concurred: “I think you are looking at months, not weeks.”

Hersman said that although Boeing built multiple and redundant safety features into the battery system, “those systems did not work as intended. ... We need to understand why.”

The NTSB has concluded that the battery short-circuited and suffered a “ thermal runaway,” an uncontrolled overheating that spreads from cell to cell, she said.

But investigators have not established the sequence of those events, or even whether the short-circuit and the thermal runaway were causes or symptoms of what went wrong.

Neither has the NTSB determined for sure whether the battery overcharged or if there could be internal manufacturing defects.

The JAL fire broke out a half-hour after the plane had ended a 12-hour flight from Tokyo to Boston.

All 183 passengers and 11 crew members had left the plane when a mechanic doing routine maintenance checks detected smoke in the cabin, then saw flames from the battery.

The jet was almost new, delivered to JAL only in December.

Hersman said the plane was not plugged into a ground charger before the fire broke out.

She said that when NTSB investigators got to the plane, the battery had already been ripped out by firefighters.

Her team noted structural and component damage in the electronics bay within about a 20-inch radius of the battery.

The battery is used to start the auxiliary power unit, or APU, a small turbine in the tail of the jet.

“The APU battery was spewing molten electrolytes, very hot material,” Hersman said.

The methodical, high-profile investigation is unfolding inside the modest forensic laboratory at NTSB’s headquarters in southwest Washington, D.C.

In a fluorescent-lit room on the fifth floor holding a half-dozen investigators, reporters Thursday paraded by the burned battery from the Dreamliner.

The battery’s cobalt-blue casing sat splayed atop a wheeled cart. One of the battery’s eight cells was left inside for display. Investigators are focusing most on cells five, six and seven, the most damaged.

On an adjacent long table, two strips of 33-foot-long foil windings made of copper and aluminum — the innards of the battery cells — lay unspooled for examination. One of the windings was more heavily damaged, much of it charred and blackened.

The NTSB is working its investigators in two daily shifts in Washington, with more staff deployed to Japan, where the battery is made, and to Tucson, Ariz., where the battery charger is made.

In a statement Thursday afternoon, Boeing said it’s working closely with the regulators to analyze what happened.

“We are working this issue tirelessly,” it said.

Maintenance data

Two electronic devices that recorded maintenance data on the JAL plane are being downloaded at Boeing in Seattle to obtain information recorded after the airplane’s electrical power was interrupted.

In addition to the detailed forensic examination of the plane’s electrical system, Hersman said the NTSB is reviewing manufacturing records and gathering information collected in supplier audits at battery maker GS Yuasa in Japan and the maker of the charging system, Securaplane Technologies. in Tucson.

It is also examining whether the FAA’s certification standards were adhered to and if those standards were adequate, Hersman said.

Four days after the Boston fire, the FAA ordered a sweeping review of the 787’s safety, focused on the electrical systems and including a review of both the design and manufacturing processes.

At that stage, however, the Dreamliners were still flying.

But last week, when the pilot of the ANA plane received instrument warnings of an overheated battery and smelled a burning odor in the cockpit — prompting the emergency landing — the Japanese airlines grounded their airplanes and the FAA followed suit.

In that incident, all 137 people on board evacuated down the emergency slides.

This time, the battery involved was in the forward electronics bay, behind and below the cockpit.

This main battery is “the final power source, should all other electrical generation fail,” Hersman said.

No fire was found, but again hot chemicals had sprayed out of the battery, leaving a trail of dark residue across the compartment.

Although the aircraft was an older jet, delivered to ANA a year earlier, the battery had been installed as a replacement in late October.

How long might the NTSB investigation take to come to a conclusion on the cause of the Boston fire?

“It’s really very hard to tell at this point,” Hersman said. “We have all hands on deck.”

That leaves Boeing in a very tough spot.

The company said it has “teams consisting of hundreds of engineering and technical experts who are working around the clock” to solve the problem.

Former NTSB member Goglia said he wouldn’t be surprised if Boeing already has a team working on a plan to replace the lithium-ion battery with a more conventional one, something that would require an FAA recertification of that part of the electrical system.

“That could take a couple of months,” said Goglia.
Pedro EM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2013, 06:23 PM   #1565
emyrr3096
Registered User
 
emyrr3096's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,547
Likes (Received): 520

Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Invader View Post
Wuah. 787 Thomsons is really catchy with the new livery on it.
__________________
3410x6310
emyrr3096 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2013, 06:25 PM   #1566
emyrr3096
Registered User
 
emyrr3096's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,547
Likes (Received): 520

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro EM View Post
Apparently someone said the process is about 3 to 4 weeks.
Why so take a long time yah? Hmm really a bad news for the 787 operator...
__________________
3410x6310
emyrr3096 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2013, 06:27 PM   #1567
emyrr3096
Registered User
 
emyrr3096's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,547
Likes (Received): 520

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro EM View Post
NTSB’s methodical probe means longer grounding for Boeing 787

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...updatexml.html

Air-safety experts said the Federal Aviation Administration isn’t likely to lift its order grounding the 787 quickly, given the NTSB’s lack of progress toward finding the root cause of the battery problems.
t looks like Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner fleet, grounded worldwide for the past week, won’t be airborne soon.

The recent fire in a lithium-ion battery aboard a parked Japan Airlines (JAL) 787 in Boston “is a very serious air-safety event,” National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said Thursday in a briefing on the agency’s investigation.

“We do not expect to see fire events on board aircraft,” she told reporters at the agency’s Washington, D.C., offices.

But the inquiry is far from determining the cause of the fire. “We have not yet ruled anything out,” Hersman said. “There’s a lot more work to be done.”

Air-safety experts said the Federal Aviation Administration isn’t likely to quickly lift its order grounding the 787, given the NTSB’s lack of progress toward finding the root cause and Hersman’s blunt warning.

Former NTSB member John Goglia said Boeing is in limbo until the board can pinpoint the cause of both the Jan. 7 Japan Airlines fire and the overheated battery that forced an emergency landing of an All Nippon Airways (ANA) 787 in Japan a week later.

“They’ve got to find the smoking gun,” said Goglia. “If there’s no definitive cause, this airplane is going to be down for a while.”

“Months, not weeks”

Jim Hall, a former head of the NTSB, concurred: “I think you are looking at months, not weeks.”

Hersman said that although Boeing built multiple and redundant safety features into the battery system, “those systems did not work as intended. ... We need to understand why.”

The NTSB has concluded that the battery short-circuited and suffered a “ thermal runaway,” an uncontrolled overheating that spreads from cell to cell, she said.

But investigators have not established the sequence of those events, or even whether the short-circuit and the thermal runaway were causes or symptoms of what went wrong.

Neither has the NTSB determined for sure whether the battery overcharged or if there could be internal manufacturing defects.

The JAL fire broke out a half-hour after the plane had ended a 12-hour flight from Tokyo to Boston.

All 183 passengers and 11 crew members had left the plane when a mechanic doing routine maintenance checks detected smoke in the cabin, then saw flames from the battery.

The jet was almost new, delivered to JAL only in December.

Hersman said the plane was not plugged into a ground charger before the fire broke out.

She said that when NTSB investigators got to the plane, the battery had already been ripped out by firefighters.

Her team noted structural and component damage in the electronics bay within about a 20-inch radius of the battery.

The battery is used to start the auxiliary power unit, or APU, a small turbine in the tail of the jet.

“The APU battery was spewing molten electrolytes, very hot material,” Hersman said.

The methodical, high-profile investigation is unfolding inside the modest forensic laboratory at NTSB’s headquarters in southwest Washington, D.C.

In a fluorescent-lit room on the fifth floor holding a half-dozen investigators, reporters Thursday paraded by the burned battery from the Dreamliner.

The battery’s cobalt-blue casing sat splayed atop a wheeled cart. One of the battery’s eight cells was left inside for display. Investigators are focusing most on cells five, six and seven, the most damaged.

On an adjacent long table, two strips of 33-foot-long foil windings made of copper and aluminum — the innards of the battery cells — lay unspooled for examination. One of the windings was more heavily damaged, much of it charred and blackened.

The NTSB is working its investigators in two daily shifts in Washington, with more staff deployed to Japan, where the battery is made, and to Tucson, Ariz., where the battery charger is made.

In a statement Thursday afternoon, Boeing said it’s working closely with the regulators to analyze what happened.

“We are working this issue tirelessly,” it said.

Maintenance data

Two electronic devices that recorded maintenance data on the JAL plane are being downloaded at Boeing in Seattle to obtain information recorded after the airplane’s electrical power was interrupted.

In addition to the detailed forensic examination of the plane’s electrical system, Hersman said the NTSB is reviewing manufacturing records and gathering information collected in supplier audits at battery maker GS Yuasa in Japan and the maker of the charging system, Securaplane Technologies. in Tucson.

It is also examining whether the FAA’s certification standards were adhered to and if those standards were adequate, Hersman said.

Four days after the Boston fire, the FAA ordered a sweeping review of the 787’s safety, focused on the electrical systems and including a review of both the design and manufacturing processes.

At that stage, however, the Dreamliners were still flying.

But last week, when the pilot of the ANA plane received instrument warnings of an overheated battery and smelled a burning odor in the cockpit — prompting the emergency landing — the Japanese airlines grounded their airplanes and the FAA followed suit.

In that incident, all 137 people on board evacuated down the emergency slides.

This time, the battery involved was in the forward electronics bay, behind and below the cockpit.

This main battery is “the final power source, should all other electrical generation fail,” Hersman said.

No fire was found, but again hot chemicals had sprayed out of the battery, leaving a trail of dark residue across the compartment.

Although the aircraft was an older jet, delivered to ANA a year earlier, the battery had been installed as a replacement in late October.

How long might the NTSB investigation take to come to a conclusion on the cause of the Boston fire?

“It’s really very hard to tell at this point,” Hersman said. “We have all hands on deck.”

That leaves Boeing in a very tough spot.

The company said it has “teams consisting of hundreds of engineering and technical experts who are working around the clock” to solve the problem.

Former NTSB member Goglia said he wouldn’t be surprised if Boeing already has a team working on a plan to replace the lithium-ion battery with a more conventional one, something that would require an FAA recertification of that part of the electrical system.

“That could take a couple of months,” said Goglia.
A Couple of mounth???
1 mounths is Fine
2 mounths is Ok
3 mounths is bad bad news
How about the operational cost for the grounded aircraft?
__________________
3410x6310
emyrr3096 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2013, 04:35 AM   #1568
PiotrG
庶民サンプル
 
PiotrG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: 第2PRL
Posts: 10,256

LN34 B-2725, first build frame for China Southern in new livery:
[img]http://i49.************/fxf29.png[/img]

source: http://kpae.blogspot.com/
__________________

Equario, Highcliff liked this post

Last edited by PiotrG; January 27th, 2013 at 04:01 PM.
PiotrG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2013, 02:48 PM   #1569
Pedro EM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 336
Likes (Received): 51

So looks like China Southern will have that livery for all aircraft of the type.
Pedro EM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2013, 06:57 PM   #1570
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,821
Likes (Received): 11257

That brand new CZ livery truly evokes a spirit of flight, a bold departure from its old livery with multiple cheat lines... Hopefully, that light blue livery with wings will be deployed also on most of its aircraft as well. I don't know, though, of that design will be deployed on its A380s...
__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine ForumsSF Bay Area ForumsBay Area TransitNEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: FlickrPhotobucketInstagram

Rohnert Park • Rio Vista • Richmond • Redwood City • Portola Valley • Pleasanton • Pleasant Hill

Highcliff liked this post
fieldsofdreams está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2013, 06:39 AM   #1571
Heludin
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somewhere next door
Posts: 1,312
Likes (Received): 70

I found this comment relevant since Boeing went from being an excellent company to practices less effective in the name of ''MONEY".

Difference Engine: An innovation too far?

Quote:
That is probably the least Boeing will have to do to satisfy the FAA. But more extreme measures may be needed. Ultimately, that might mean abandoning lithium-ion batteries altogether and replacing them with nickel-cadmium (ni-cad) ones. That is what Cessna was forced to do in 2011 after the lithium battery in one of its Citation CJ4 business jets caught fire. Such a move by Boeing would keep the Dreamliner grounded for possibly as long as a year, as the plane’s electrical system was redesigned and resubmitted for certification.

Boeing could have avoided its current woes had it adopted ni-cads in the first place—or, at least, heeded recommendations for more stringent testing of lithium batteries made in 2008 by RTCA, an independent standards body that advises the FAA. Both Boeing and the FAA chose to ignore the tougher recommendations for fear of delaying the 787 Dreamliner still further. Instead, to save weight, Boeing gambled on the powerful lithium battery, knowing full well its risks. The irony is that, in doing so, all it saved was 18kg (40lb) per plane—about the same, one expert noted, as a single piece of baggage
I also found this document describing how the No-Bleed systems works.
Heludin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2013, 06:52 AM   #1572
pobre diablo
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,533
Likes (Received): 316



Even less that a luggage, as most airlines allow up to 23 kg.
pobre diablo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2013, 08:08 AM   #1573
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,821
Likes (Received): 11257

The question is this: what is the difference of using a Nickel-Cadmium battery versus that of a Lithium-Ion battery to begin with? I wonder then how much safer a NiCad battery is in the overall operation of the 787 versus a Li-ion one, as well as how much cheaper (or costlier) it will be to create such batteries for such a technologically-advanced aircraft. If it is found that the NiCad battery is cheaper — and more effective — than the Li-Ion, then well and good: first, test it out with a handful of aircraft and see their performance on both short- and long-haul journeys, and when it is found that it does not face significant problems as its Li-Ion counterpart, then Boeing and the NTSB should make a joint resolution to replace its battery component and deploy the better technology on all aircraft. It will take time, though... Hopefully, those affected airlines will have enough spare aircraft to operate the affected routes.
__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine ForumsSF Bay Area ForumsBay Area TransitNEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: FlickrPhotobucketInstagram

Rohnert Park • Rio Vista • Richmond • Redwood City • Portola Valley • Pleasanton • Pleasant Hill

Highcliff liked this post
fieldsofdreams está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2013, 02:52 PM   #1574
Pedro EM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 336
Likes (Received): 51

Perhaps this is what they'll have to do if thats what happened with the Citation. Hope it'll be solved sooner rather than later either way.
Pedro EM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2013, 04:52 PM   #1575
Heludin
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somewhere next door
Posts: 1,312
Likes (Received): 70

You meant, you hope it'll be solved it does not matter what it takes? Since rushing the plane into production was a key factor here.

I can live without the 787 for as long as it takes to get debuged, properly.
Heludin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2013, 06:55 PM   #1576
Pedro EM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 336
Likes (Received): 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heludin View Post
You meant, you hope it'll be solved it does not matter what it takes? Since rushing the plane into production was a key factor here.

I can live without the 787 for as long as it takes to get debuged, properly.
Well Boeing and the whole aviation industry in general also hopes a solution will be found ASAP.
Pedro EM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2013, 09:37 AM   #1577
Heludin
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somewhere next door
Posts: 1,312
Likes (Received): 70

It seems that Boeing knew about the problem before hand and did not do much to adress the problem, the following report is disturbing at some extent.

Japan's airlines replaced 787 batteries many times

Quote:
ANA said Wednesday it replaced batteries on its 787 aircraft some 10 times because they failed to charge properly or showed other problems, and informed Boeing about the swaps. Japan Airlines said it had also replaced lithium-ion batteries on its 787 jets but couldn't immediately give details.

Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman, said in Washington that the agency was checking whether the previous battery incidents had been reported by Boeing.
Heludin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2013, 02:43 PM   #1578
Pedro EM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 336
Likes (Received): 51

Well it is if true but Im sure Boeing wouldn't cover it up if they thought it would potentially be serious.
Pedro EM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2013, 04:51 PM   #1579
IlhamBXT
Registered User
 
IlhamBXT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 16,823
Likes (Received): 5193

Hello Guys What is Update about 787 ?
And How Long to investigate about 787 mistake
__________________
IlhamBXT está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2013, 01:00 AM   #1580
Tyco75
Orgulloso de ser TICO
 
Tyco75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: La Uruca, San José
Posts: 4,767
Likes (Received): 507

Quote:
Originally Posted by PiotrG View Post
LN34 B-2725, first build frame for China Southern in new livery:
[IMG]http://i49.************/fxf29.png[/IMG]

source: http://kpae.blogspot.com/
China Southern new livery looks fantastic.
__________________

Highcliff liked this post
Tyco75 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
airplane, boeing

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium