U.S. experts join Japan probe into Dreamliners

National ( 23 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

23 Comments

Login to comment

  • 1

    The passage

    “A plane is designed to fly. Even if a good 787 flies, we have good solutions to face it. I don’t bet on the difficulties of a competitor,” Airbus chief executive Fabrice Bregier said.

    Really encouraging to see this comment, and speaks volumes of their own confidence.

  • -2

    basroil

    The batteries used in the Dreamliner are built at GS Yuasa's flagship factory in Kyoto, Yamamoto said. Thales Alenia of France is providing the charger equipment, power conversion, standby flight instrument and in-flight entertainment systems. http://news.yahoo.com/dreamliner-woes-spotlight-japan-battery-maker-105514849--finance.html

    From the fact that the battery expanded outside specification and leaked electrolyte, Yuasa is surely to blame for the fires (since their batteries should be up to specifications including those on thermal runaway). But Thales does make the charging equipment that likely helped achieve thermal runaway. The odd issues with the in flight systems seen during evacuation video might indeed be due to issues with Thales equipment, that worsened manufacturing errors in the batteries.

    Interesting this is the only new article out there that doesn't mention Thales's involvement in the issue, maybe it's not so new.

  • 0

    gogogo

    Teething problems is something that should NOT be applied to planes!

  • 1

    Serrano

    @gogogo

    Unfortunately, anything as sophisticated as an aircraft, especially this one, is going to have teething problems. All aircraft ever produced have had teething problems.
    Boeing will fix this before there are any serious injuries, deaths or crashes.

  • -5

    smithinjapan

    Serrano: "Boeing will fix this before there are any serious injuries, deaths or crashes."

    I highly doubt it, Serrano. It's not only the batteries, but they outsourced a lot of other jobs in making the parts for the planes as well. And with Boeing involved in the investigation all you can safely bet on is that they'll insist on hurrying it along so they can get the planes back in the air, and that soon after there will be another incident, and possibly a major accident. Production of these planes should stop immediately until they can be managed better and the parts all come from the same place (and are put together in the same place). But like I said, and as they have done so far, Boeing will 'stand behind' their product despite error after error, and rush along delays so as to keep any compensation and loss of revenue as little as possible. The people who are still supporting Boeing on the 787 are only doing so to save face because they have already ordered so many.

  • 0

    basroil

    smithinjapanJan. 18, 2013 - 04:01PM JST

    It's not only the batteries, but they outsourced a lot of other jobs in making the parts for the planes as well

    By your reasoning, Airbus shouldn't even have a plane in the sky, yet they are still Boeing's only rival. Outsourcing isn't something new, and in most cases it actually means you can produce more at higher quality since you don't have to be a master of everything. The question is, who should you outsource to, and that's where things get tricky. Thales SA, which makes the electronic controls (including battery controls) also sources Airbus planes and was expected to be better at it's job than it apparently is. Yuasa similarly was supposed to be the third largest battery manufacturer and supposed to be able to make batteries that match and exceed specifications, but that also seems to have been less than true.

    The people who are still supporting Boeing on the 787 are only doing so to save face because they have already ordered so many.

    They are doing so because they remember the bad press the 777 got after cabin depressurization and engine wear issues (cabin pressure issues are more or less as dangerous as slow contained fires). To this date not a single life has been lost on a 777, and it is the safest plane out there in terms of death per miles flown. They are simply expecting the 787 to be another 777 in terms of safety.

  • -2

    basroil

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-01-17/faa-studying-bad-batteries-as-possible-cause-of-787-fault#p1

    Looks like investigators are looking into this primarily as an issue with the battery supplier, with Yuasa insisting it's a problem with Thale's chargers instead. Looks like one of those two (or both) is going to take heavy fines (from both FAA and Boeing) over this.

  • -3

    smithinjapan

    Basroil: "Outsourcing isn't something new, and in most cases it actually means you can produce more at higher quality since you don't have to be a master of everything."

    And yet, even the experts agree: "Hans Weber, an independent security and defense expert, said Boeing had been too optimistic about the benefits of its worldwide outsourcing strategy to build the 787. If Boeing had done a better job at that, it would not have experienced the technical problems it has, in my opinion.”

    So you know more than the experts on this one, basroil?

    "By your reasoning, Airbus shouldn't even have a plane in the sky, yet they are still Boeing's only rival. "

    How's that? Is Airbus flying defective 787's? If not, why the red herrings?

    "They are simply expecting the 787 to be another 777 in terms of safety."

    Big problem then, as a 787 is not a 777. I doubt they took the same shortcuts with the 777 as they have with the 787 in their haste to build and ship the things.

  • -1

    basroil

    smithinjapanJan. 18, 2013 - 05:17PM JST

    even the experts agree: "Hans Weber, an independent security and defense expert, said Boeing had been too optimistic about the benefits of its worldwide outsourcing strategy to build the 787. If Boeing had done a better job at that, it would not have experienced the technical problems it has, in my opinion.”

    Well, I specifically stated "The question is, who should you outsource to, and that's where things get tricky. " So in other words I was in perfect agreement with your expert. Notice that expert didn't blame outsourcing, he blamed who Boeing picked for outsourcing.

    I won't defend Boeing on their choices on who they picked to source their batteries, but I do defend their choice to pick to outsource batteries, since Boeing has no experience in making lithium ion batteries or even designing them. I also won't defend their choice to outsource to Thales the entire power system assembly rather than directly outsourcing each part separately (Thales subcontracted Yuasa for their batteries, Boeing only contracted Thales)

    You tend to have a bad habit of attacking me directly, rather than actually bothering to understand and counter what I say.

    I doubt they took the same shortcuts with the 777 as they have with the 787 in their haste to build and ship the things.

    51% of the 777 was outsourced, and they also did the 777 modeling entirely in CAD, not a single scale model was used for the individual parts until after the plane was designed. It was just as radical of a shift as the 787 in terms of a change in process. Interestingly enough, one of my professors way back when worked for Boeing on the 747 designs, and they basically internally "outsourced" parts, nobody other than the team leaders really got a good look at the overall plane, just what they were working on. As long as everything is up to spec, the only difference between internal work and outsourced work is how many companies get the blame for one screwup.

  • 0

    Thunderbird2

    It's fine to blame the Japanese manufacturer of the battery... but what about the cracked windscreen? The fuel leaks?

  • -1

    basroil

    Thunderbird2Jan. 18, 2013 - 07:46PM JST

    what about the cracked windscreen? The fuel leaks?

    Cracked windows aren't uncommon, and not usually cause for panic. The crack was discovered and replaced, and also isolated. There is a chance it's more serious, but very likely just simple damage.

    The fuel leaks could be anything from a non issue (maintenance/build error) to a power related issue to something completely different. So far the fuel leaks have shown up in just one airplane, so it's too early to know how serious the fuel leaks are, and even if it is an issue with just that plane or others.

  • 2

    Open Minded

    Arguing about parts origin or outsourcers' responsibilities is irrelevant IMHO. There is one constructor: Boeing with full responsibility in its new airplane.

    Many serious incidents, but at the end the regulator gave the order to ground these machines, not the constructor, nor the operators. Shame on them and thumb up to the US agency, that for sure has huge pressure to play it down.

    When big money is involved, safety first is just a part of business risk assessment: taking the risk of a crash might have been evaluated more profitable than a grounding.

  • 1

    CraigHicks

    I am not an expert but I would have thought that it would be easy enough to build a volt/amp meter into the battery, to see what was being input/out into/outof the battery. And record that data in a log, and also show a warning light in the cockpit if it is out of bounds. Also, couldn't the battery be ventilated so that even if it did burn up, it wouldn't suffocate the passengers and crew? And if the battery wasn't working, couldn't the necessary power be drawn from engine powered turbines operating as a backup?

  • -3

    basroil

    Open MindedJan. 18, 2013 - 08:44PM JST

    There is one constructor: Boeing with full responsibility in its new airplane.

    For a new plane, yes. However, it's still not known if the issue is with the planes as they were delivered or if it was something done during maintenance. The single biggest factor is battery replacements, since those can be swapped out without Boeing ever seeing the part.

    CraigHicksJan. 18, 2013 - 09:18PM JST

    I would have thought that it would be easy enough to build a volt/amp meter into the battery, to see what was being input/out into/outof the battery.

    You would think that, and you're right checking values is easy. But that's not the problem, the problem is controlling those values, which is a very difficult thing at the power levels associated with these batteries.

    also show a warning light in the cockpit if it is out of bounds.

    That's exactly what happened and why the pilot took the actions he did.

    Also, couldn't the battery be ventilated so that even if it did burn up, it wouldn't suffocate the passengers and crew?

    And unlike the Swissair Flight 111's MD-11, the plane is designed to prevent cabin fires from spreading to the cockpit even with ventilation blackout. The battery is also kept separate from the cabin in it's own compartment with it's own venting systems. So far the main battery hasn't been involved in any issues, only the aux batteries (also used in many other airplanes including the A380 and upcoming A350)

    And if the battery wasn't working, couldn't the necessary power be drawn from engine powered turbines operating as a backup?

    They have multiple batteries, and multiple generators, loss of battery power is not a life threatening issue in terms of being able to fly the plane, though it would require emergency landing if all battery power is lost.

    You need to remember that they aren't that stupid, Boeing's been designing and building commercial airliners since the 1920s (When Boeing Air Transport, now United Airlines, introduced female flight attendants), and jet airliners since 1950s (and since they merged with McDonnell-Douglas, they have their experience as well). Sure they make mistakes, but the mistakes are usually on the level of using one thickness of metal rather than another, or using one welding method over another. The things regular people are considering now are the ones they already know about and have from "trial and error" in past accidents.

  • -1

    Matthew Simon

    A little irony that everyone was talking crap about Boeing but it was the Made in Japan parts that were having the problems.

  • 2

    Fadamor

    “If Boeing had done a better job at that, it would not have experienced the technical problems it has, in my opinion.”

    Always nice when some third-party can look at a corporation and determine exactly where something went wrong with little to no actual investigation. OR They can just make a guess and pass it off as fact.

    Teething problems is something that should NOT be applied to planes!

    In a Utopian world, you'd be right. But we don't live in Utopia and never will.

    The people who are still supporting Boeing on the 787 are only doing so to save face because they have already ordered so many.

    Really? I support them and I haven't bought a single one.

    And with Boeing involved in the investigation all you can safely bet on is that they'll insist on hurrying it along so they can get the planes back in the air, and that soon after there will be another incident, and possibly a major accident.

    Maybe AirBus has the ability to coerce the EU into doing things their way (it IS Europe, after all), but the FAA is remarkably resistant to coercion by aircraft manufacturers. Boeing is involved in the investigation because 1.) the investigators need someone on-site they can ask questions of regarding the specs and manufacturing process, and 2.) someone needs to get word back to Boeing headquarters as soon as causes are surmised in order to get started on solutions without having to wait for the final report.

  • 1

    Open Minded

    Basroil:

    However, it's still not known if the issue is with the planes as they were delivered or if it was something done during maintenance. The single biggest factor is battery replacements, since those can be swapped out without Boeing ever seeing the part.

    Wait! This airplane is branded Boeing, right? Is the operator allowed to make any intrinsic modifications without the manufacturer's consent? I sincerely doubt, but would appreciate your comment.

  • 0

    Open Minded

    Basroil:

    Maybe AirBus has the ability to coerce the EU into doing things their way (it IS Europe, after all), but the FAA is remarkably resistant to coercion by aircraft manufacturers.

    I am always interested in coercive influence and would appreciate if you could back up this statement.

  • -3

    basroil

    Open MindedJan. 18, 2013 - 10:47PM JST

    Wait! This airplane is branded Boeing, right? Is the operator allowed to make any intrinsic modifications without the manufacturer's consent? I sincerely doubt, but would appreciate your comment.

    Sounds like you've skipped the posts above again simply to attack me...

    The batteries in question aren't the main batteries, rather aux batteries, which are small cubes that are easily replaceable by the airline maintenance crews. They, like any other spare parts, are not modifications of anything.

  • 0

    Open Minded

    Bottom line is that there has been a gap between the development and the commercial production. Such a huge project have an unbelievable logistic complexity. And starting construction takes years, well before the development is completed. My assumption is that production was ready before the last critical R&D was completed and financial pressure forced Boeing to skip some basic safety stages not to jeopardize its business credibility.

    I am sure this machine will become a generic and I am looking forward to it. But sorry, until so and as a frequent flyer, I do not accept to be their guinea pig while paying full price. Make me a 50% discount and then I might consider it!

  • 0

    Open Minded

    Basroil: Sorry if you took my comment as personal attack, this was not my intention. I just cannot believe an operator can replace ANY part of a plane without the constructor's consent. If this case, the US agency would not have requested total grounding for this model. If you do so with a car - not using any original spare parts - you loose the warranty, I would believe this is even more valid for an aircraft.

    PS: sorry, one of my reply was addressed to Fadamor and not you.

  • 0

    Hide Suzuki

    @Matthew Simon

    "it was the Made in Japan parts "

    It doesn't matter. Boeing is responsible for any issue including specification and testing. Just like Toyota is responsible for any issue related to Toyota vehicles even if some parts were made in China by American companies.

    Don't blame the suppliers when they sell $150 Million products, I'm sure that's enough money to conduct thorough testing.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    basroil: "Well, I specifically stated "The question is, who should you outsource to, and that's where things get tricky."

    Yes, after the red herring you threw out ("By your logic...") to deflect from the point that I clearly made saying Boeing had outsourced for other parts as well, and that it should all be one company making the parts instead of various.

    You ARE correct though, whom you outsource to is important, and clearly Boeing cared more about speed and the bottom line than doing it right. As such, it is entirely correct that the entire 787 fleet be grounded until they can be proven without a doubt to be safe. These are not 777s, and they are not any other plane. While all planes may have trouble at the start, it's quite clear that the shortcuts Boeing has taken have put the plane in a new league of danger. They current planes should be scrapped at Boeing's expense, and the ones under construction be stopped if they are still using the same faulty parts, and they should start again. Major loss for the company, but I imagine a lot of lawsuits over a plane crash and hundreds dead after all these incidents and Boeing insisting the craft is okay wouldn't be much different.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in National

View all

View all