FlyWorld

One solution to that problem is to replace the Lithium Ion batteries with old style NiCad batteries. If done properly, then fire risk on 787 should fall to the level accepted on all existing aircraft. Right?

grahampros

I would not be in the LEAST surprised if they are not back in the air by July at the rate this is going. Some like to trivialize how insignificant the issues raised are, but it's not the reality how serious the issues are for the program. Best case back in the air in may, worst case who knows when that could be.

It seems to be Boeing's least preferred solution with the longest delay time.

mduell

Sorry I was unclear - I understand the definitions in the advisory circular. I was wondering what the original source for the 50000 flight hours was. I've seen it a lot of places, but the first place I saw seemed like the 50k was a guess.

Assuming the battery chemistry is the problem. Recall that NiCds are also subject to thermal runaway, and have had thermal runaway incidents on aircraft before.

FlyWorld

Agreed and understood. But, if they choose this option, then the "higher risk of fire" issue is eliminated. That was my point. Alternately, they can push for a way of dealing with the fire risk on Lithium Ion batteries, but then the increased fear factor will remain for a longer period of time.

I also wonder what this is doing to insurance rates. Ultimately, it's the insurance companies that are on the hook for an adverse outcome that causes losses, right? So, they must be revising their risk models to account for the higher risk now demonstrated with Lithium Ion.

The increased risk premiums driven by increased risk will erode the cost benefit of the 787.

Sensible hypothesis?

grahampros

Given the troubled history of this program, none of this is really that surprising. It was almost expected some major issues would crop up. Major black mark for Boeing and well well into the future before the program is ever profitable. They were already at 1100 units to break even, before the grounding. Now that's probably pushed to min of 1500 units. Hopefully lessons learned on how NOT to manage a program.

Lori_Q

It looks like only the DEN-NRT and NRT-DEN nonstops for April 1-9 are on the ITA calendar, but the other April nonstops are gone. The nonstops are still on the schedule in May except for May 9 and 10.

As for flights in May, June, and later, it seems more likely that they'd push the DEN traffic to existing TPAC routes rather than switch the 787 for another gauge. At the beginning of the summer travel season, there probably aren't any idle heavies to put on the DEN-NRT nonstop route.

grahampros

I'd really just stop worrying about if you're flight will be a 787 at this point. Right now anything is unlikely for the foreseeable future. There is not even a solid plan of return to service so there is no guessing when it will be until sometime post May is the only certainty.

TravellingMan

There is always Uncle Sam to backstop the losses and increased insurance costs as they have done in other fields

jbcarioca

The 50,000 hours are Boeings estimate to flight hours since certification IIRC. Thus the incidents per 50,0000 hours/

The NiCad incidence is very, very low. Look it up.

weero

I am not sure about your experiences with the battery type but I managed to get several NiCd cell to either explode, smoke, or twice to burst in flames violently. The same never happened to me with Li type cells.

Also the cell voltage 1.2V vs 3.7 is vastly different, the charging is similar - constant current - but the charge limiting is very different.

I would be much more worried to fly with old NiCd batteries, somewhat less with NiMH ones.

jbcarioca

That is not even a sure thing. It is possible that Boeing is already producing parts for their proposed fix. If so, and the FAA accepts the request, B787's could be flying again within a couple of weeks of the approval.

Factually, all of us are clueless IMHO, including those who are technically competent to judge. This is now a FAA-JCAB decision for all practical purposes. JNTSB and US NTSB will certainly be fully prepared to second-guess anything with which they disagree.

Firewind

Forget thee not the EC. As the most recent article I read put it, "France" is in on the deliberations...

http://news.yahoo.com/boeing-propose...--finance.html

(@ paragraph 7, cited here because the defenders seem to be on the tack that we customers, rather than Boeing and they, need to be justifying everything.)

jbcarioca

That was intentional because the only European owner today is IIRC LOT. And LAN and Ethiopian ares just beginning so those regulators will not be factors, assuming they might have been.
Thus the Japanese and Americans have rather more at stake. I do not mean to dismiss the Europeans, who have an enormous issue, including with the electrical system falling under European supervision.

Sorry, if that seemed to be a slight. I was just thinking of where the 50 aircraft are...

Firewind

The impetus for my comment was that the planes would need approval to fly into the EU, whatever the carrier, and that the camel's nose is therefore well into the tent - non? (And, if so, that the camel's nose is French might add a weightier dynamic.)

scosprey

As I understand it, you're "ok" with the other battery, and up to six generators--two per engine, including two powered off the apu. You're probably "fine" with even just the four generators tied to the two main engines powering the 78s' systems. But, in either of these cases, you're probably looking to land at the nearest suitable field. There is, also, the probable last resort (emergency use) RAM air turbine. But will the regulators go along, particularly given the original 78 certification requirements, and, perhaps no or limited ETOPS, given this "solution"? I can't wait to see if they'll release the video and results of a presumably required induced thermal runaway on Boeing's proposed box and pipes solution.

This is a funny reply, except, underlying this, we're talking about a major part of Boeing's preferred, real world solution to 78 battery thermal runaway, and probable fire on board. Let's hope the other part--additional battery cell spacing and revised, cell dividers can sufficiently bring down the risk of getting to the thermal runaway stage!