Boeing 787 Dreamliner Incidents Raise Safety Concerns

[oldsailor35]

The response of the safety agencies is admirable. They have certainly learnt their lessons from past design issues. It took a few catastrophic de Havilland Comet crashes to initiate some action in the good old days. I think the battery issue will be resolved. The other equipment issues are to be expected.

Personally, I prefer the B777 to the Dreamliner. It is bigger and has been in service for enough time that the kinks have been worked out. Call me a Boeing fanboy but my favourite aircraft are the B777, B737 and the old reliable B767. I dislike the B747 and have yet to accept any booking on an AB380. Thankfully EVA is still all B777. TG's fleet of ancient Airbuses on the HKG-BKK route scare me and the B747 it uses on the HKG-HKT route terrifies me. I had to fly one of those old clunkers in September and August last year when I was doing the FCO-BKK and FRA-BKK routes. I drank alot to numb my terror. What I would give for a chance to fly on an Pan Am Clipper. They had real dining facilities and a mechanic on board. I envy some of you old timers that probably flew on those.

My first long haul flight was in 1954. In an Avro York. 5 days Colombo - London. Flight deck crew 5 ( Capt. Co Pilot, Flt Engineer, Navigator, Radio Officer) Cabin crew 2. Full compliment of passengers 26. Hotel stop every night. 8000 ft all the way. Non - pressureised cabin. Quite an experience !

Edited January 25, 2013 by oldsailor35

[cdnvic]

That what happens when you outsource to China.

Really? The equipment and parts implicated are not of Chinese origin.

The Lithium battery supplier is GS Yuasa (Japan).

The fuel tank and valve suppliers are a mix of established US and EU firms with no Chinese companies involved.

For the record; AVIC Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Group is the sole supplier of Boeing 787 rudder, and it is also the only supplier of 747-8 aileron and spoiler. Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) is the sole supplier of Boeing 787 vertical stabilizer leading edge. Harbin Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation is the supplier of Boeing 787 wing-body fairing panels. To date there are no problems reported with these components.

Don't you feel foolish blaming the Chinese for components that are sourced from non Chinese sources?

Think he was referring to "Maintenance" and not components.

Any evidence this was done in China?

[Ricardo]

+1

The perils of airline-management !

[David48]

Mate ... could you post that over the plane spotting quiz thread please?

.

[Chicog]

Boeing are really hurting over this and there is no sign of a fix.

Federal safety investigators remain perplexed by what caused a battery on a Boeing 787 to burst into flames earlier this month in Boston. All of the 787s are grounded worldwide after problems with the new airliner also surfaced in Japan.

At a briefing Thursday, the head of the National Transportation Safety Board said it could be a long time before the plane dubbed the Dreamliner is cleared to fly.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/25/170231466/boeings-787-problems-remain-a-mystery

http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2013/01/21/cancellations-escalate-as-dreamliner-remains-grounded/1851763/

[Mosha]

BBC has just reported that. JAL and ANA complained of problems with the batteries in October.

[Chicog]

Some good (ish) news for Boeing at last:

Boeing can conduct Dreamliner test flights

By Mike M. Ahlers, CNN

February 8, 2013 -- Updated 1034 GMT (1834 HKT)

Washington (CNN) -- After three weeks on the ground, Boeing's 787 Dreamliner soon will return to the skies -- but only so engineers can test the plane's troubled electrical and battery systems, the Federal Aviation Administration said Thursday.

The FAA approved test flights for the Boeing planes with strict conditions to assure safety: Only essential personnel will be on board, crews must continuously monitor the plane for battery-related problems and tests will be conducted over unpopulated areas.

"These flights will be an important part of our efforts to ensure the safety of passengers and return these aircraft to service," the agency said.

Boeing spokesman Marc Birtel said in a statement that the company is "confident" the tests could be conducted safely, and said one Boeing aircraft has been designated for the test. Flights are planned in the U.S. Northwest.

More here: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/07/travel/dreamliner-battery-investigation/index.html

The interesting part:

The FAA announcement comes on the same day the National Transportation Safety Board told reporters it had identified the exact battery cell that first short-circuited on a plane in Boston in early January, but still had not determined the root cause of the electrical short.

It listed among the possibilities a manufacturing flaw, a design defect or problems with external systems that charge and discharge the battery.

The safety board also said it is placing under the microscope Boeing's testing program, which led to the certification of the lithium-ion batteries for the plane.

Those tests apparently led the airplane builder to greatly underestimate the chances of battery failure, the safety board said.

Boeing had estimated a "smoke" event would occur "less than once in 10 million flight hours" with the batteries, Deborah Hersman, the safety board's chairman, said.

But two batteries failed after fewer than 100,000 hours of actual flight, one leading to a fire aboard the 787 on the ground in Boston.

Further, Boeing's indications that heat damage in one battery cell would not harm adjacent cells proved false, Hersman said.

[Chicog]

Embarrassing....

Flight have resumed at London's Heathrow Airport after a fire on a parked Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet.

All runways were closed for nearly 90 minutes after the fire at 16:30 BST. No passengers were aboard the plane at the time, a Heathrow spokesman said.

Fifty Dreamliners worldwide were grounded in January after malfunctions with the plane's lithium-ion batteries.

Boeing modified the jets with new batteries and flights resumed in April.

Read more here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760

Edited July 13, 2013 by metisdead
Post edited per fair use policy and supporting link added.

[Mosha]

The fire was in the rear section, near the crew rest quarters.

[stevenl]

On the news reels it used to mention the name 'Dreamliner', now it just said the much more neutral 'Boeing 787'. Coincidence?

[jpinx]

You have to feel sorry for Boeing in their attempts to take a big step in technology against the hard realities of commercial aviation, but it does seem that they have fallen short in their design of the electrical systems in the 787. Batteries are always an issue - I survived an exploding Ni-Cd battery many years ago and we retro-fitting all those machines with lead-acid -- no more problems It's not so easy for Boeing, they have an expectation from their customers and the repeated failures are more than usual for a new model roll-out. I'm sure the 787 will survive and go on to become a workhorse, but I also hope that Boeing learn from this chapter and get the next design a bit closer to serviceable before they start deliveries. Inadvertently using your first customers as a test environment is not the way to go

[NanLaew]

About a month ago, my friend was flying from SFO to NRT and on to Bangkok and mentioned the first sector was on a Dreamliner. The plane developed some problem south of Alaska and returned to Seattle. They overnighted and flew the next day on a replacement aircraft (not a Dreamliner).

Lithium batteries are used extensively in marine seismic exploration and the transportation, storage and fire protection required when deployed on a ship is quite onerous. The marine seismic use is in small-volume, low-current devices that are towed at sea for long periods with prolonged cycle times (much longer time between battery changes). I have witnessed one incident where the devices went too deep, the batteries were ruptured due to pressure and they commenced smoking and burning. Since Lithium will ignite and burn in oxygen when exposed to water or water vapors, this can mean a spontaneous, high-temperature fire, the primary goal upon equipment recovery is to get them off the vessel. A lithium fire can easily burn through steel decking; a bit like the 'blood' from Ripley's 'Alien' in the movie.

I was somewhat surprised to see that Boeing was deploying them in high-volume, high-current configurations for backup (ground) power systems. Both the Logan and Heathrow fires indicate upwards of 40 minutes for skilled fire teams to extinguish these fires (assuming the latest Heathrow fire is indeed battery related). When I saw a feature on the approved modifications which included a more rugged steel, air-tight containment box for the battery packs, I couldn't really see that as a major safety improvement. Once the lithium gets into thermal runaway, it doesn't need oxygen and all they would get (in my opinion) is a really hot box with a thicker skin that can melt most anything around it.

The batteries are normally shipped on cargo-only aircraft but certain carriers would permit them on passenger flights with the Captains approval. However, even some cargo-only flights prohibit them so they are typically sea-freighted in bulk. Even the Class D fire extinguishers mandated by their use need special handling. I reckon having them in bulk, in storage, before use on a ship is quite difficult but having them in bulk, in storage between use on a plane is all a bit risky.

[jpinx]

About a month ago, my friend was flying from SFO to NRT and on to Bangkok and mentioned the first sector was on a Dreamliner. The plane developed some problem south of Alaska and returned to Seattle. They overnighted and flew the next day on a replacement aircraft (not a Dreamliner).

Lithium batteries are used extensively in marine seismic exploration and the transportation, storage and fire protection required when deployed on a ship is quite onerous. The marine seismic use is in small-volume, low-current devices that are towed at sea for long periods with prolonged cycle times (much longer time between battery changes). I have witnessed one incident where the devices went too deep, the batteries were ruptured due to pressure and they commenced smoking and burning. Since Lithium will ignite and burn in oxygen when exposed to water or water vapors, this can mean a spontaneous, high-temperature fire, the primary goal upon equipment recovery is to get them off the vessel. A lithium fire can easily burn through steel decking; a bit like the 'blood' from Ripley's 'Alien' in the movie.

I was somewhat surprised to see that Boeing was deploying them in high-volume, high-current configurations for backup (ground) power systems. Both the Logan and Heathrow fires indicate upwards of 40 minutes for skilled fire teams to extinguish these fires (assuming the latest Heathrow fire is indeed battery related). When I saw a feature on the approved modifications which included a more rugged steel, air-tight containment box for the battery packs, I couldn't really see that as a major safety improvement. Once the lithium gets into thermal runaway, it doesn't need oxygen and all they would get (in my opinion) is a really hot box with a thicker skin that can melt most anything around it.

The batteries are normally shipped on cargo-only aircraft but certain carriers would permit them on passenger flights with the Captains approval. However, even some cargo-only flights prohibit them so they are typically sea-freighted in bulk. Even the Class D fire extinguishers mandated by their use need special handling. I reckon having them in bulk, in storage, before use on a ship is quite difficult but having them in bulk, in storage between use on a plane is all a bit risky.

Thanks for the additional info. Laptop batteries are similarly dodgy and there have been plenty of instances of "hot knees" and a few combustions. Your point about the type of useage is highly relevant. Li batteries are ok at low current long life applications but bad at high ampere outputs. Nickel Cadmium batteries were similar, we had to rate the number of start attempts and carefully watch the battery temperature guage.

One assumes that Boeing knew about all this and are only using the Li batteries for low current delivery.

[NanLaew]

About a month ago, my friend was flying from SFO to NRT and on to Bangkok and mentioned the first sector was on a Dreamliner. The plane developed some problem south of Alaska and returned to Seattle. They overnighted and flew the next day on a replacement aircraft (not a Dreamliner).

Lithium batteries are used extensively in marine seismic exploration and the transportation, storage and fire protection required when deployed on a ship is quite onerous. The marine seismic use is in small-volume, low-current devices that are towed at sea for long periods with prolonged cycle times (much longer time between battery changes). I have witnessed one incident where the devices went too deep, the batteries were ruptured due to pressure and they commenced smoking and burning. Since Lithium will ignite and burn in oxygen when exposed to water or water vapors, this can mean a spontaneous, high-temperature fire, the primary goal upon equipment recovery is to get them off the vessel. A lithium fire can easily burn through steel decking; a bit like the 'blood' from Ripley's 'Alien' in the movie.

I was somewhat surprised to see that Boeing was deploying them in high-volume, high-current configurations for backup (ground) power systems. Both the Logan and Heathrow fires indicate upwards of 40 minutes for skilled fire teams to extinguish these fires (assuming the latest Heathrow fire is indeed battery related). When I saw a feature on the approved modifications which included a more rugged steel, air-tight containment box for the battery packs, I couldn't really see that as a major safety improvement. Once the lithium gets into thermal runaway, it doesn't need oxygen and all they would get (in my opinion) is a really hot box with a thicker skin that can melt most anything around it.

The batteries are normally shipped on cargo-only aircraft but certain carriers would permit them on passenger flights with the Captains approval. However, even some cargo-only flights prohibit them so they are typically sea-freighted in bulk. Even the Class D fire extinguishers mandated by their use need special handling. I reckon having them in bulk, in storage, before use on a ship is quite difficult but having them in bulk, in storage between use on a plane is all a bit risky.

Thanks for the additional info. Laptop batteries are similarly dodgy and there have been plenty of instances of "hot knees" and a few combustions. Your point about the type of useage is highly relevant. Li batteries are ok at low current long life applications but bad at high ampere outputs. Nickel Cadmium batteries were similar, we had to rate the number of start attempts and carefully watch the battery temperature guage.

One assumes that Boeing knew about all this and are only using the Li batteries for low current delivery.

One would hope that the bulkiness of these battery packs is indeed only to serve a low-current, long-duration load. Interesting to note that the Ethiopian plane at Heathrow was on (I think) an 8-hour standover. The one at Logan may also have been on an extended, turnaround stopover. Maybe these batteries have issues when they have been in use for a while and the regular 1-3 hour turnaround on a regional stopover doesn't cause problems because of the short duty or they maybe even use parking stand power?

Big headache for Boeing and Airbus must be watching intently with their planned Lithium battery use in A350's

[jpinx]

About a month ago, my friend was flying from SFO to NRT and on to Bangkok and mentioned the first sector was on a Dreamliner. The plane developed some problem south of Alaska and returned to Seattle. They overnighted and flew the next day on a replacement aircraft (not a Dreamliner).

Lithium batteries are used extensively in marine seismic exploration and the transportation, storage and fire protection required when deployed on a ship is quite onerous. The marine seismic use is in small-volume, low-current devices that are towed at sea for long periods with prolonged cycle times (much longer time between battery changes). I have witnessed one incident where the devices went too deep, the batteries were ruptured due to pressure and they commenced smoking and burning. Since Lithium will ignite and burn in oxygen when exposed to water or water vapors, this can mean a spontaneous, high-temperature fire, the primary goal upon equipment recovery is to get them off the vessel. A lithium fire can easily burn through steel decking; a bit like the 'blood' from Ripley's 'Alien' in the movie.

I was somewhat surprised to see that Boeing was deploying them in high-volume, high-current configurations for backup (ground) power systems. Both the Logan and Heathrow fires indicate upwards of 40 minutes for skilled fire teams to extinguish these fires (assuming the latest Heathrow fire is indeed battery related). When I saw a feature on the approved modifications which included a more rugged steel, air-tight containment box for the battery packs, I couldn't really see that as a major safety improvement. Once the lithium gets into thermal runaway, it doesn't need oxygen and all they would get (in my opinion) is a really hot box with a thicker skin that can melt most anything around it.

The batteries are normally shipped on cargo-only aircraft but certain carriers would permit them on passenger flights with the Captains approval. However, even some cargo-only flights prohibit them so they are typically sea-freighted in bulk. Even the Class D fire extinguishers mandated by their use need special handling. I reckon having them in bulk, in storage, before use on a ship is quite difficult but having them in bulk, in storage between use on a plane is all a bit risky.

Thanks for the additional info. Laptop batteries are similarly dodgy and there have been plenty of instances of "hot knees" and a few combustions. Your point about the type of useage is highly relevant. Li batteries are ok at low current long life applications but bad at high ampere outputs. Nickel Cadmium batteries were similar, we had to rate the number of start attempts and carefully watch the battery temperature guage.

One assumes that Boeing knew about all this and are only using the Li batteries for low current delivery.

One would hope that the bulkiness of these battery packs is indeed only to serve a low-current, long-duration load. Interesting to note that the Ethiopian plane at Heathrow was on (I think) an 8-hour standover. The one at Logan may also have been on an extended, turnaround stopover. Maybe these batteries have issues when they have been in use for a while and the regular 1-3 hour turnaround on a regional stopover doesn't cause problems because of the short duty or they maybe even use parking stand power?

Big headache for Boeing and Airbus must be watching intently with their planned Lithium battery use in A350's

Interesting little summary of technical information here ...

http://www.mpoweruk.com/performance.htm

It is well known that any battery - especially a Li battery - will start to "panic" if the current draw is relentless as the battery is exhausted, causing the battery to overheat. 8 hours might be too much for them

[NanLaew]

About a month ago, my friend was flying from SFO to NRT and on to Bangkok and mentioned the first sector was on a Dreamliner. The plane developed some problem south of Alaska and returned to Seattle. They overnighted and flew the next day on a replacement aircraft (not a Dreamliner).

Lithium batteries are used extensively in marine seismic exploration and the transportation, storage and fire protection required when deployed on a ship is quite onerous. The marine seismic use is in small-volume, low-current devices that are towed at sea for long periods with prolonged cycle times (much longer time between battery changes). I have witnessed one incident where the devices went too deep, the batteries were ruptured due to pressure and they commenced smoking and burning. Since Lithium will ignite and burn in oxygen when exposed to water or water vapors, this can mean a spontaneous, high-temperature fire, the primary goal upon equipment recovery is to get them off the vessel. A lithium fire can easily burn through steel decking; a bit like the 'blood' from Ripley's 'Alien' in the movie.

I was somewhat surprised to see that Boeing was deploying them in high-volume, high-current configurations for backup (ground) power systems. Both the Logan and Heathrow fires indicate upwards of 40 minutes for skilled fire teams to extinguish these fires (assuming the latest Heathrow fire is indeed battery related). When I saw a feature on the approved modifications which included a more rugged steel, air-tight containment box for the battery packs, I couldn't really see that as a major safety improvement. Once the lithium gets into thermal runaway, it doesn't need oxygen and all they would get (in my opinion) is a really hot box with a thicker skin that can melt most anything around it.

The batteries are normally shipped on cargo-only aircraft but certain carriers would permit them on passenger flights with the Captains approval. However, even some cargo-only flights prohibit them so they are typically sea-freighted in bulk. Even the Class D fire extinguishers mandated by their use need special handling. I reckon having them in bulk, in storage, before use on a ship is quite difficult but having them in bulk, in storage between use on a plane is all a bit risky.

Thanks for the additional info. Laptop batteries are similarly dodgy and there have been plenty of instances of "hot knees" and a few combustions. Your point about the type of useage is highly relevant. Li batteries are ok at low current long life applications but bad at high ampere outputs. Nickel Cadmium batteries were similar, we had to rate the number of start attempts and carefully watch the battery temperature guage.

One assumes that Boeing knew about all this and are only using the Li batteries for low current delivery.

One would hope that the bulkiness of these battery packs is indeed only to serve a low-current, long-duration load. Interesting to note that the Ethiopian plane at Heathrow was on (I think) an 8-hour standover. The one at Logan may also have been on an extended, turnaround stopover. Maybe these batteries have issues when they have been in use for a while and the regular 1-3 hour turnaround on a regional stopover doesn't cause problems because of the short duty or they maybe even use parking stand power?

Big headache for Boeing and Airbus must be watching intently with their planned Lithium battery use in A350's

Interesting little summary of technical information here ...

http://www.mpoweruk.com/performance.htm

It is well known that any battery - especially a Li battery - will start to "panic" if the current draw is relentless as the battery is exhausted, causing the battery to overheat. 8 hours might be too much for them

I reckon between the two of us, we have the 'problem' solved no?

Do you want to call Boeing or will I?

Thread closed!

[Mosha]

You have to feel sorry for Boeing in their attempts to take a big step in technology against the hard realities of commercial aviation, but it does seem that they have fallen short in their design of the electrical systems in the 787. Batteries are always an issue - I survived an exploding Ni-Cd battery many years ago and we retro-fitting all those machines with lead-acid -- no more problems It's not so easy for Boeing, they have an expectation from their customers and the repeated failures are more than usual for a new model roll-out. I'm sure the 787 will survive and go on to become a workhorse, but I also hope that Boeing learn from this chapter and get the next design a bit closer to serviceable before they start deliveries. Inadvertently using your first customers as a test environment is not the way to go

When they were loking to build the 747-300. They had the technology to buld it with the 747-400 cockpit. Customers said no we want a 3 man cockpit, adding they would not buy a 747-400 type aircraft. Well look what history tells us. The 787 was built to customer specs, and at this rate could be a commercial failure.

[Loptr]

It will never be a failure. It is only going through some growing pains, nothing more.

On another note I had my first flight in a 787 yesterday and I must admit it is a very nice piece of kit.

[jpinx]

It will never be a failure. It is only going through some growing pains, nothing more.

On another note I had my first flight in a 787 yesterday and I must admit it is a very nice piece of kit.

It'd be interesting to get your impressions....

Things like noise levels, undercarriage "clunks", seating, toilets, etc.

[stevenl]

It will never be a failure. It is only going through some growing pains, nothing more.

On another note I had my first flight in a 787 yesterday and I must admit it is a very nice piece of kit.

So far a few incidents. But a serious accident caused by the battery could easily jeopardize your statement.

[Crossy]

Another fire, Heathrow closed briefly.

Unrelated? Maybe.

[NanLaew]

Another fire, Heathrow closed briefly.

Unrelated? Maybe.

Old news already Crossy.

The word is 'not battery related'.

Did a google search for 787 incidents and found at least a dozen before the 3-month FAA enforced shut down. Around the time in mid-Jun when my buddy's DEN-NRT flight rerouted to Seattle, there was a ANA flight bound for Singapore that got rerouted. Also a couple of United LHR-IAH flights got cancelled.

United, America's only 787 operator at the moment, quotes over 3% 787 flight cancellation rate versus less than 1% for other aircraft in their fleet.

[sbk]

Yes not battery related

The damage to the Ethiopian Airlines 787 appears to be above the crew rest area and “should have very little connection to electrical systems,” Douglas Harned, a New York-based aerospace analyst with Bernstein Research, wrote in a note to clients. He rates Boeing shares outperform.

“Most importantly, the two key lithium-ion batteries are far away from the location of the fire,” Harned said. He said he doesn’t see the incident as a risk to the 787 program.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-12/boeing-dreamliner-fire-at-heathrow-renews-787-safety-concerns.html

[NanLaew]

Yes not battery related

The damage to the Ethiopian Airlines 787 appears to be above the crew rest area and “should have very little connection to electrical systems,” Douglas Harned, a New York-based aerospace analyst with Bernstein Research, wrote in a note to clients. He rates Boeing shares outperform.

“Most importantly, the two key lithium-ion batteries are far away from the location of the fire,” Harned said. He said he doesn’t see the incident as a risk to the 787 program.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-12/boeing-dreamliner-fire-at-heathrow-renews-787-safety-concerns.html

Wow... some real gems in that article such as;

"The damage to the Ethiopian Airlines 787 appears to be above the crew rest area and “should have very little connection to electrical systems,” Douglas Harned, a New York-based aerospace analyst with Bernstein Research, wrote in a note to clients. He rates Boeing shares outperform."

An aerospace analyst but NOT an aircraft engineer. There's all sorts of electrical bits stuffed in spaces above the roof lining, especially near the tail like.... auxiliary power systems. Not unknown to get hot and start fires.

Then Ethiopian's corporate mouthpiece claiming;

"At this point all that we can say is that there was no flight safety issue and the aircraft was parked for hours, waiting for the scheduled return flight time, when smoke was observed.”

Great! But what if the fire started say... 16 hours after the plane was parked up? That's half-way through it's return flight to Addis. Tell THOSE passengers they weren't at risk.

But the biscuit for corporate foot-in-mouth must be attributed to Boeing themselves when it was reported that;

"Boeing said in April it may not been able to identify the root cause of the battery issues but said its modifications would prevent the problems reoccurring."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23298349

Hello? We are absolutely clueless as to what the problem is but these modifications will stop the problem?

I have flown millions of miles from first class in good commercial airlines to being wedged in the cargo area of a dodgy Russian-built, Kazakh-piloted flying boxcar that the tail ramp wouldn't close on in Sierra Leone. Right now, I reckon that last one is a safer option to the 787 in it's current state. The plane officially entered commercial service in 2011 and only now they are testing it? Methinks something stinks at Everett and the FAA but the regulatory authorities can't be seen to be too harsh on the US's only commercial cash cow airline manufacturer. Almost in the same category as the 'too big to fail' mentality of the banking and finance business.

Edited July 14, 2013 by NanLaew

[Carib]

UK Investigation board issued a bulletin today the 18th of July: "A fire event occurred on a parked, unoccupied and electrically un-powered Boeing 787 aircraft at London Heathrow Airport. Subsequent examination of the fire-affected area has focused on the Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT). "

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/S5-2013%20ET-AOP.pdf

[Crossy]

UK Investigation board issued a bulletin today the 18th of July: "A fire event occurred on a parked, unoccupied and electrically un-powered Boeing 787 aircraft at London Heathrow Airport. Subsequent examination of the fire-affected area has focused on the Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT). "

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/S5-2013%20ET-AOP.pdf

BBC news reported that the AAIB have advised all operators of 787s to turn off the ELT until the root cause is found (wonder if it will be the ELT's LiPo battery).

[Mosha]

So another battery problem

[jpinx]

UK Investigation board issued a bulletin today the 18th of July: "A fire event occurred on a parked, unoccupied and electrically un-powered Boeing 787 aircraft at London Heathrow Airport. Subsequent examination of the fire-affected area has focused on the Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT). "

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/S5-2013%20ET-AOP.pdf

BBC news reported that the AAIB have advised all operators of 787s to turn off the ELT until the root cause is found (wonder if it will be the ELT's LiPo battery).

Probably the same sort of issue that occurred with i-phones a while ago, and some laptops iirc

[stevenl]

And again a problem with a Dreamliner, http://news.sky.com/story/1117696/dreamliner-turns-back-after-fuel-pump-warning. These things do happen, but all in all does not help the reputation of the plane at all.

[jpinx]

And again a problem with a Dreamliner, http://news.sky.com/story/1117696/dreamliner-turns-back-after-fuel-pump-warning. These things do happen, but all in all does not help the reputation of the plane at all.

Keeping it in perspective -- this is a brand new technology so Boeing are going through more teething pains than is usual with a new aircraft. Remember what happened when the airbus first went to "fly-by-wire" -- there were *lots* of problems including a disasterous crash, but the plane came good and now is accepted and acknowledged to be excellent.

There's no progress without pain......