← Back to Squawk list
  • 26

FAA Approves Single Ferry Flight for 787

Enviado
 
Boeing 787 allowed 1 ferry flight from Fort Worth to Everett (www.bloomberg.com) Más...

John Smith
Adicto a las noticiasMaximizadoAmigo de fiarFotógrafo amateurPromotorAltruistaAnunciante

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


lbflight
Burke Files 4
Fatal Flaw Analysis
The problems of the 787 remind me of an ole professor who taught me that if you have a challenge before you of 100 problems, and you can solve 99 of them - in time, but one you are not sure of, focus on the one you are not sure of - since if you cannot fix that - that is the fatal flaw. You ability to fix 99% of the problems is worthless.

I do sincerely hope the 787 is flying soon and safely.

As for the several random negative marks - it happens from stalkers, lurkers, and 7 year olds unsupervised with a mouse. (One of my kids taught the last lesson - and to her dad of all things!)
Responder ↓•Permalink•Report
w7psk
Ricky Scott 7
Scheduled for 9:40am CST .. here is the flight in question

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE382/history/20130207/1430Z/KFTW/KPAE
Responder ↓•Permalink•Report
w7psk
Ricky Scott 8
Really, someone gave me a negative just for point to the flight. Coward. You must get your jollies off doing it. Must be hell in mommies basement.
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
unclebigpete
Peter Douglas 6
The same thing with one of my posts, Ricky. All I was doing was pointing out a funny google translation, and I got pinged. We all need a laugh, and I thought I was helping. Or maybe it was the typo I made - but if that was the case, most people on here would get pinged every day!
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 2
Me too. Turns out more than one of use posted the same data at the same time. Worth a thumbs down...hardly.
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
btweston
btweston 1
Apparently got under your skin...
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
jshhmr
josh homer 3
Well shit! I live 1/2 mile from KFTW!! I can't believe I missed it!!
Responder ↓•Permalink•Report
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
Well you did...and so did I. Darnit!
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
ddwengert
Dennis Wengert 2
Putting the batteries under full load, including powering up all the equipment, both inflight and ground, will likely be the only way to see if they can duplicate the failure. As I mentioned in a previious post, the elephant is the room is growing progressively larger. I expect the general grounding to last at least a few more weeks and possibly months until they can diagnose a definitive cause and create a fix. Yes, it does seem like saving 40 kg (about 84 pounds)is a steep price to pay when you compare the alternative Ni-Cad technology. That's only 2 pieces of checked luggage on a plane that will hold hundreds of bags or tons of cargo below the passenger deck.
Responder ↓•Permalink•Report
albertczyk
Alberto López Navarro 2
NiCad or NiMH have a completely different charge/discharge characteristics than Li-ion. They'd need to almost completely redesign and re-certificate a good chunk of the electrical system.
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
Derg
Roland Dent 2
The batteries should be stable at 1.5 times the max load. That is the industry standard. Some half baked non engineer decided to play God here. He needs to change careers.
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 5
I think one of the problems here Rolly is that there were too many engineers on the project. This is another case of a camel produced by a committee out to design a horse.

What needs to happen is the monitor and electronics be taken out of the box. The cells need to be spaced so they can't thermally affect the neighbors, and the burst discs must have a containment structure that will not allow hot electrolyte to escape. More sophiscated charge/discharge management must be included to handle worst case events.
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
unclebigpete
Peter Douglas 1
That's one of the best answers I've read here, Ric. Mainly because it's exactly what I think is the best answer. They need to keep the weight effectively the same, and the only downside will be a bigger space taken up. It can't be too hard to get certification on that.
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
Derg
Roland Dent 1
You are prolly right there Ric, yes. Haha..I DO have a personal grouse with the business crowd. My Weimaraner is brighter than many I have had to deal with.
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
No disrespect, but that doesn't necessarily reflect well on your dog. You might have inserted 'much' for clarification.

good dog, that one
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Haha right on....
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
Bsklarski
Brian Sklarski 1
Anyone know what 787 that was ferried?
Responder ↓•Permalink•Report
williambaker08
william baker 1
All I know it was china southern airlines if I'm not mistaken.
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
jwmitchell1949
jack mitchell 1
I hope they are (will) wear parachutes !!
Responder ↓•Permalink•Report
captleo
captleo 1
I believe that the only way to fix this problem beside maybe changing this battery will be to test fly it at full dc current and see where it will break, then fix it.
Responder ↓•Permalink•Report
jjsifo
J JAIME SIFONTES 1
I just wonder, how many pressurization cycles will those composites stand ?
Responder ↓•Permalink•Report
captleo
captleo 1
Hello if they saved hundred of kilos in weight by using composite materials why cant they used regular gell battery that are so good with out any problem?
Responder ↓•Permalink•Report
williambaker08
william baker 1
Because that would make since lol an also it would take fuel saving off from what they are now.
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
williambaker08
william baker 1
CNN is stating that the FAA approved Boeing to do flight test on the aircraft for resting the electrical and battery systems but they must only have essential personal on board and stay out of populated areas. Now comes the real test of what really happen and how to truly fix it.
Responder ↓•Permalink•Report
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 0
BOEING 787 DREAMLINER
Here's Dreamliner problem
By Per Erlien Dalløkken

for the full article in a Norway journal , the link is

http://www.tu.no/industri/2013/01/17/her-er-dreamliner-problemet

Details may interest some guys
Responder ↓•Permalink•Report
unclebigpete
Peter Douglas 3
Yes, interesting details, but also a gook laugh at the translation from Norwegian - such as this line: 'The aircraft manufacturer points out, however, that this is a new fly that far from having any more children diseases than is usual.'
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
williambaker08
william baker 0
We'll looks like the Dreamliner made its flight without any issue as its landing now in Everett as I write this.
Responder ↓•Permalink•Report

[This poster has been suspended.]

williambaker08
william baker 0
We'll I didn't hear the press conference but from what I got from sources is that the ntsb centered in on one of the eight cells in the battery. Boeing how ever isn't being tight lipped about this as they said they are going to build a better containment for the battery and seperate the cells and confine them more so that they reduce the thermal runaway issue also they are looking into software updates and adding more heat sensors to the batteries. Also the flight was a success because the FAA told them if they see any alarms temps rising or abnormalities with the batteries they were to land immediately at the closest airport. And from what I see they landed in Everett 3 and a half hours after take off.
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report

[This poster has been suspended.]

williambaker08
william baker 4
The problem with a new battery type is weight and also they would have to bigger to produce as much power as the battery they now use. Also that would take time to design a battery that will work with the system. They say it before if you have something working why throw it away. Now don't get me wrong they are having issues with the batteries but it would be cheaper in my mind in the long run to find a fix to the batteries rather then throw them out. Also from what I heard from Boeing I think they said they believe the issue was created by parts that cheap sort of say instead of parts that were meant to be there lol. Give Boeing and the ntsb sometime to find a fix and fix it. Also as far as a camera in either aft or front bay there isn't any but would be a good idea for them. Also a good idea is to put a seperate fire suppression system in the containment box for the batteries to put the fires out if any occur during flight like the engine suppression systems.
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
skyfly12
shawn white -5
Breaking news on twitter:

- Al Qaeda rules out use of Boeing #787 in terrorist attacks as "too dangerous"
Responder ↓•Permalink•Report
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
And just where would they find a jihadist typed in the 787 for take off?
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
Derg
Roland Dent -4
Al Q would have the sense to replace this POS with another unit.
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal -1
An interesting line from " google " ,link on Li-ion Batteries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Safety
, reading in the opening para as ...... " Handheld electronics mostly use LIBs based on lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), which offers high energy density, but have well-known safety concerns, especially when damaged " ...... And at another place under Safety / Transport Restrictions head , .... "The Boeing 787 Dreamliner contains lithium cobalt oxide[121] batteries which are more reactive than newer types of batteries such as LiFePo [122]"..... And this piece of knowledge can not be attributed to last week ! Eh ?
Responder ↓•Permalink•Report
Derg
Roland Dent -5
My 5 yr old had a toy car with a better battery than this. WTF is Boeing playing at...? Now I realise that we are all kinda dumbed down these days..but Boeing please untangle your pants..you are a national embarassment.
Responder ↓•Permalink•Report
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal -3
What is surprising about it ? It is normal. After all , with such a dismal performance report , the testing will have to across the board , on every imaginable aspect of usage !
Responder ↓•Permalink•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

bishops90
Brian Bishop 2
Seriously??
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report
Coutsof
Mario Coutsoftides 0
Gentlemen any new aircraft has its teething problems however unfortunately the smaller the problem the longer it takes to discover. The aircraft is a super airplane like all the Boeing predecessors but sometimes big corporations fail to listen to outsiders, this time maybe they should such as the MIT or other suggestions and explore all possibilities. I would personally do that
Responder ↓•Permalink•Report
hopskip
Trent Hopkinson 1
Being grounded for months due to a tendancy to catch fire isn't really all that "Small" a problem.
Responder ↓•Permalink•Padre•Report

Entrar

¿Olvidaste tu contraseña?
¿No tienes cuenta? ¡Regístrate ahora (gratis) para acceder a prestaciones personalizadas, alertas de vuelos, y más!
Únete a FlightAware
Este sitio web utiliza cookies. Al usar y seguir navegando por este sitio, estás aceptando su uso.
Descartar
¿Sabías que el rastreo de vuelos de FlightAware se sostiene gracias a los anuncios?
Puedes ayudarnos a que FlightAware siga siendo gratuito permitiendo que aparezcan los anuncios de FlightAware.com. Trabajamos arduamente para que nuestros anuncios sean discretos y de interés para el rubro a fin de crear una experiencia positiva. Es rápido y fácil whitelist ads en FlightAware o por favor considera acceder a nuestras cuentas premium.
Descartar