The Dreamliner's Continuing Woes

[Guest]

You have to remember Li Ion batteries work just fine in a range of products and Boeing expected them to work in the Dreamliner.

 

I also find LiIon performance characteristics are good too.

I once had some Japanese branded NiMnH cells for my Olympus digital camera. They need re-charging frequently, then failed after just over 10 cycles. Compare with LiIon cells which can take hundreds of photos on one charge, hold their charge and still take hundreds of photos 3 years later.

 

It's no coincidence that they are taking over in phones, cameras, laptops, electric cars and eventually aircraft.

 

Only Boeing and a few specific laptop types have had safety problems, as far as I know.

We can safely say if people were being incinerated after leaving their phones on charge overnight, news would get out.

[kokopelli]

We can safely say if people were being incinerated after leaving their phones on charge overnight, news would get out.

Hah! There is a conspiracy by the cell phone manufacturers to suppress all cases of incineration. You really don't believe that cover story about spontaneous human combustion?

[Guest fountainhall]

You have to remember Li Ion batteries work just fine in a range of products and Boeing expected them to work in the Dreamliner

 

Errrrrrr . . . not sure if the first part of that statement is accurate. And being so, Boeing's "expecting them to work" would not give me any confidence in flying a plane fitted with such batteries.

 

29 July 2012

 

A cell phone battery spontaneously caught fire today, burned through a Defcon attendee's back pants pocket, and fell on the floor, creating burn spots on a carpet and leaving a burn-hole in the attendee's chair.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57481932-83/cell-phone-battery-catches-fire-burns-hackers-tail-at-defcon/

 

1 February 2012

 

The photo of a badly burned Apple iPhone that circulated after the phone caught fire during a Regional Express flight has raised important questions about lithium-ion battery safety among a wide aviation audience.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2012-02-01/battery-fires-keeping-li-ion-caged

 

3 December 2010

 

24 January 2013

 

A laptop computer on a nightstand caused a mattress to catch fire in a Corvallis apartment Wednesday morning

http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/laptop-s-battery-blamed-for-apartment-fire/article_94e389ea-65bf-11e2-9314-001a4bcf887a.html

 

31 May 2011

 

HP is expanding its voluntary recall of thousands of notebook computer batteries . . . the Lithium-ion batteries cited in the recall have been known to "overheat and rupture"

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/hp-recalling-more-laptop-batteries-due-to-fire-hazards/49619

 

11 February 2009

 

Overnight, IBM Corp. and Lenovo Group, the world's third-largest computer maker, said they were seeking the recall of 526,000 rechargeable, lithium-ion batteries purchased with ThinkPad computers after one of them caught fire at Los Angeles International Airport this month.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500395_162-2051618.html

[Guest]

There are probably about 7 billion LiIon batteries on the planet in mobile phones alone, plus those in various other applications.Despite being made cheaply in China, the number of fires still seems very small.

Aerospace applications should have more money available for quality control and suitable control systems for the charging. So I would expect a much lower failure rate to be achievable.

 

Of course, I would not do anything as rash as fly one of these things until it has successfully been in service for 3~4 more years.

[Guest fountainhall]

As a fare paying passenger, it doesn't matter to me in the slightest how infrequently a cellphone or laptop fire has occurred on the ground. The fact is they occurred. A second fact is those battery types have failed in several Dreamliners. Like z909, nothing will now persuade me to fly in one until several years after this 'problem' has been fixed.

[Guest anonone]

Another interesting tidbit has popped up with the batteries on the 787. 

 

Boeing had numerous reliability issues with the main batteries on its
787 Dreamliner long before the two battery incidents this month
grounded the entire fleet.

More than 100 of the lithium-ion batteries have failed and had to be
returned to the Japanese manufacturer, according to a person inside the
787 program with direct knowledge.

“We have had at least 100, possibly approaching 150, bad batteries so far,” the person said. “It’s common.”

 

 

Most of the batteries were returned because they had run down so far that a low-voltage cutout was activated.

At that stage, the batteries, which cost about $16,000 each, are essentially dead and cannot be recharged

 

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020241385_787deadbatteriesxml.html

 

I am not knowledgeable in the field to really know if this is indicative of the problems yet to come, or if these were replaced for reasons far removed from the fire risk. 

 

But it seems certain that there are issues to be solved, and it will probably not happen quickly. 

[Guest fountainhall]

Boeing has now asked the FAA for permission to start a series of special Dreamliner test flights. This doesn’t indicate the company has discovered the source of the faults which led to the batteries going on fire. Hundreds of experts are working on the problem and all appear to be stumped. The test flights are to try and recreate the problems found on the JAL and ANA aircraft and then to work backwards to find the source.

The outlook for a speedy return for the Dreamliner, though, is increasingly unlikely.
 

 

Barring a breakthrough, some pessimists predict that designing and installing a new battery system could take as long as a year.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324761004578284392368343774.html

 

And Boeing's troubles with the plane look set to get worse. JAL has announced that it will seek compensation for losses arising from the grounding. These have included the postponement of the opening of a new non-stop route to Helsinki later this month. 

 

http://en.haberler.com/japan-airlines-to-seek-damages-over-dreamliner-253625/

 

ANA and other carriers operating Dreamliners have not yet raised the issue of compensation specifically, but ANA cancelled 459 flights in January and has estimated losses that month of US$15 million.

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/429861/20130131/ana-boeing-787-dreamliner-flight-cancellation.htm

[Guest]

And Boeing's troubles with the plane look set to get worse. JAL has announced that it will seek compensation for losses arising from the grounding.

That is to be expected.  They have paid out millions of dollars for new planes and are unable to earn revenue from them.

[Rogie]

Do airlines have insurance for this sort of thing?

[Guest]

Do airlines have insurance for this sort of thing?

I expect the aircraft supplier has some kind of contractual obligation to deliver a plane that works and can be used for the intended purpose.

In this case, I'm assuming Boeing would be the company that needs the insurance so they can pay out claims from airlines. Either that, or there would be a big hit on their profits.

[Rogie]

Thanks Z. That seems far more likely.

 

On a related issue, I think we've discussed payouts to passengers (or their families) involved in airline crashes, etc. A difference between say pilot error and equipment / aircraft design faults.

[Guest thaiworthy]

I expect the aircraft supplier has some kind of contractual obligation to deliver a plane that works and can be used for the intended purpose.

 

In my working days, I delivered software that I knew had bugs in it, but had workarounds. The pressure to deliver on time was so great, there was no other recourse. Of course, I was not making airplanes. One wonders the threshold of acceptability, when people's lives are at stake.

[kokopelli]

One wonders the threshold of acceptability, when people's lives are at stake.

Just take a look at NASA and the chances they took with astronauts lives such as the Challenger accident. The mission first, their lives second. Hope the airline industry is more safety conscious.

[Guest fountainhall]

You might want to read this article in The Atlantic in which the writer quotes from the client newsletter of an expert from the Teal Group, a company which provides Aerospace and Defense Market Intelligence, Analysis and Forecasts. This newsletter suggests that Boeing may have largely brought the problem on themselves by replacing Engineers with Bean-Counters at the head of the organization.
 

 

Last summer, Boeing's top management axed the engineer CEO who had been turning around BCA [boeing Commercial Airplanes] and making it better again. They replaced him with a non-engineer CEO. Then, management got into a confrontation with the engineer's union (which may also partly be the union's fault, but it's not a battle management can afford right now). Then Chicago put off the very promising 777X [new long-range, highly efficient model] until the next decade, which, from a customer perspective, might as well be an indefinite postponement. These moves were on top of a 787 development model that de-emphasized in-house engineering and relied on industry partners for much of the development work.

Since the 787 appeared to be out of the woods, and the 777X was put off until the next decade, Chicago likely didn't think it needed much from engineers. Then that damn 787 battery thing happened. Oops. Back in Seattle, engineers, represented by a disgruntled union and forced to report to multiple layers of non-engineer management, are working overtime on the problem, but after several weeks, nobody appears to be close to a solution. As this is written, there's a strong chance of a six to nine month grounding (due to the need for re-certification) . . .

Boeing's problem isn't just that the engineers have been nudged aside by the bean counters. It's that the bean counters need to rethink the way they manage the company.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/boeings-real-problem-with-the-dreamliner-bean-counter-vs-engineer/272944/

[Guest]

PLEASE DELETE

[Guest]

Outsourcing large sections of projects has downsides.

 

1 Know how and added value is moved outside, so the suppliers can sell the same technology to competitors.

 

2 When there is a problem, unscrupulous suppliers can fabricate data to show their parts are OK.

 

3 Investigations into problems can be delayed as suppliers number one priority is frequently to ensure their company is not liable for the costs of the failure.

 

However, I would expect the Engineering functions to have control over all technical decisions.

[Rogie]

As an aside, but following on from some of the problems touched upon in preceding posts, the current horsemeat scandal in Britain is an example of what can go wrong when supply chains are long and often questionable and the company ordering the product do not have much in the way of in-house expertise.
 

 

"Supermarkets are battling with each other to be the cheapest, and demanding better and better deals from their suppliers.

"One shouldn't imagine that supermarkets are knowledgeable
about exactly what is found in every product, but this does risk
compromising their credibility.

"There has to be trust between the supermarket and suppliers,
and in turn their suppliers and their suppliers. You can see how it is
easy for the chain to become convoluted."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21059425

 

 

Britain's Foods Standard Agency recently revealed that . . .

 

Findus beef lasagne contained up to 100% horsemeat

 

 

Environment Secretary Owen Paterson said it was "completely
unacceptable" that a product claiming to beef lasagne turned out to be
mainly horsemeat.

 

"The responsibility for the safety and authenticity of food lies with
those who produce it, and who sell or provide it to the final consumer.
I know that food producers, retailers and caterers are as concerned as
we are at the course of recent events," he said.

"The Food Standards Agency, Defra, and the Department of
Health are working closely with businesses and trade bodies along the
whole food chain to root out any illegal activity and enforce food
safety and authenticity regulations.

 

Findus said the product was manufactured by a third party supplier and not by Findus.

 

"We are confident that we have fully resolved this supply chain issue. Fully compliant beef lasagne will be in stores again soon."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21375594

[Guest fountainhall]

It has taken the better part of a month, but Boeing has finally admitted that future Dreamliner deliveries will be delayed. One source is quoted by the Wall Street Journal as saying "at least three months". This will impact not only Boeing. Boeing is the country's largest exporter, so look for a drop in exports in at least the first quarter.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324590904578291273359302006.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

The airline most directly affected seems to be Poland's LOT. It has 2 Dreamliners and 3 more due to be delivered. These were to replace its ageing fleet of 4 Boeing 767s. The airline had a request for a government loan of roughly US$127 million denied in December. With the 787 grounded, LOT's financial outlook has darkened. It has to continue with ageing gas guzzling planes and leasing other models at great expense and uncertainty amongst passengers. Might it be the next airline to go bust?

 

http://www.biztok.pl/Dreamliner-to-najwiekszy-koszmar-LOT-u-l10912

[Guest]

I presume Boeing can carry on building 787s and retrofit the countermeasure parts. Assuming that's something easy like batteries or ECUs & also assuming the manufacturer of these parts can work 24-7 to manufacture the additional quantities.

 

Of course, if this requires major re-engineering of other electrical & even mechanical parts, then this may not be practical.

 

As for like likes of LOT, perhaps a soft loan to tide them over until they get compensation from Boeing might be fair, but that should be the limit. If their contract has no provision for compensation, it's their problem.

In principle, inefficient overmanned "flag carriers" should be allowed to fail if they cannot compete.

[Guest fountainhall]

I don't know for sure, but I believe contracts for delivery of new aircraft are filled with all manner of compensation conditions. Failure to deliver on a specified date will certainly be one. Airlines must plan their fleet requirements years ahead, and that depends on new aircraft being delivered on time. With the Dreamliner already 3 years behind schedule, LOT wlll be due quite substantial comensation.

 

The same is true if a new aircraft fails to meet the performance criteria spelled out in the agreement. If, for example, the 787 does not save airlines the fuel Boeing has guaranteed it will save, then Boeing would be in for substantial additional payouts. 

 

The problem for airlines like LOT is that no-one is going to give them loans as they are already carrying a huge amount of debt. And Boeing is not going to pay out until some time after a failure to deliver. No doubt it will be lawyers who end up making tons of cash in such situations.

[Guest fountainhall]

Airbus announced today that it will use traditional nickel cadmium batteries on its forthcoming A350 aircraft that will be the main rival to the Dreamliner. The plane is due to start test flights later this year with deliveries to airlines expected in the second half of 2014.

 

It had originally planned to use lithium ion batteries like those on the Dreamliner and has expressed its confidence in them. But with no end in sight to the investigations into the cause of the battery fires on the Dreamliner, presumably Airbus is playing to the greater public in making this statement now.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21477126

[Guest fountainhall]

The Daily Beast has reported today that months before the two battery fires which grounded the Dreamliners, Boeing had been lobbying the FAA to permit the plane to fly muchl onger distances over water – specifically routes in which the nearest airport in an emergency would be over 5 hours away. Presently, the limit is 3 hours, although in 2000 the 777 was granted an exemption for certain trans-Pacific routes to 3 hours and 27 minutes.

It seems one idea to solve the problem being mulled by Boeing is to encase the new batteries in a new form of insulation. But the FAA in unlikely to –
 

. . . tolerate the idea that a meltdown can happen in flight without jeopardizing safety.

So it is likely that the FAA’s reaction will have hardened against Boeing’s efforts to lift the ETOPS certification to 5 hours. That then means –
 

the key question for airlines now is not simply, when can we get this airplane back in the air, but how far can it fly?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/19/boeing-s-dashed-flight-plan.html
 
JAL has replaced its Dreamliners on the Japan to Hong Kong, Bangkok and Singapore routes with the oldest planes in its fleet - the 767s.
 
And as if the company did not have enough problems on its plate with the Dreamliner, 23,000 Boeing engineers and technicians have been voting over whether to strike in a dispute over retirement benefits.The voting period ends Tuesday (US time). If the vote is in favour, the Seattle-based Union can call a strike at any time.
 

 

"The timing would just be horrible,” Brad Lawrence, chief executive officer of Esterline Technologies Corp., said in an interview . . . “To have your engineers’ union be this disconnected that it would walk out right when your company needs you most, it would just be horrible.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-19/boeing-strike-threat-looms-after-tumult-of-dreamliner-grounding.html

[kokopelli]

Read an article today that stated the overheating of the battery on the 787 ANA flight that made an emergency landing was due to improper wiring.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/boeing-787-battery_n_2723966.html

[Guest fountainhall]

After hundreds, possibly thousands, of engineers and technicians in several countries have been seeking answers to the battery problems for well over a month now, it strikes me as more than somewhat odd that Japanese engineers reporting on a fault in a Japanese made battery are only now suggesting that it lies in improper wiring! Surely this should have been one of the first issues to be checked weeks ago? 

 

 

 

Japan's transport safety board said in a report that the battery for the aircraft's auxiliary power unit was incorrectly connected to the main battery that overheated.

 

Yet, Reuters is now claiming that the fault lies in too close spacing of the individual battery cells. 

 

 

 

"The gaps between cells will be bigger. I think that's why there was overheating," the source, who declined to be identified because the plans are private, told Reuters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/20/boeing-dreamliner-failed-battery-wired

 

So which is it? Improper wiring? Or "thinking" gaps between cells are too small? Or is it both? And still no answer why, after years of testing and more than a year in service, these faults only came to light in January. If one or both are indeed the cause of the fires, how much time will now be allocated to the testing of the rewiring/repositioning of the cells before the Dreamliners are back in the air?

 

To my thinking, these excuses seem merely to indicate a desperation to get some positive news into the public arena. I hope I am wrong. Time, as usual, will tell.

 

Copyright: Hartford Courant / caglecartoons.com

[Guest]

Disclaimer: The following comments indicate what can happen in supplier-customer relationships and are not intended to imply anything about the Dreamliner issue.

 

Sometimes suppliers to try every damn trick in the book to avoid responsibility and liability for their design or quality control failings.

If (hypothetically), there was a problem with the batteries and there was a single wiring problem on another plane, some suppliers might try a variety of tactics to conclude that was the problem in all cases.

Don't assume there is full & open cooperation between supplier and customer.