U.S. regulator raises prospect of longer delay for Boeing 787

Comments (9)
brotherkenny4 wrote:

Yes, because any time it involves a federal agency you know it’s going to be long and painful.

Feb 07, 2013 12:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fizprof wrote:

The problem with the statement “two weeks apart” is that events that occur randomly in time typically obey “Poisson statistics”. Poisson statistics says that the probability of time interval between two successive events is a falling exponential function of the time interval, with the most probable time interval being zero! So random events tend to clump…

Feb 07, 2013 1:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

“There have now been two battery events resulting in smoke, less than two weeks apart, on two different aircraft.”

What about the 10 or so battery packs that were changed out without smoking or causing a fire?

Why don’t we hear about those too.

Feb 07, 2013 2:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

From the story:
“While the investigation continues, Boeing is pursuing multiple ways to mitigate and contain a fire, if one starts in the batteries, one source familiar with the probe told Reuters. Three or four varying approaches would be pursued to ensure the batteries did not breach their containment systems, even if they caught fire, said the source.”
That makes me shudder!

Lithium-ion batteries have been used in model aircraft for some years. Early on, before much was known about them, modellers were literally
burning their houses down, attempted to use naive apparatus to contain fires incidental to charging and storage. I tested one such system (with a MUCH smaller battery)and the results were astonishing:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=355739&highlight=test+ammunit+box

Feb 07, 2013 3:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WhyMeLord wrote:

Anyone familiar with aircraft design and build methodologies knows and appreciates that something is seriously wrong with this aircraft. Most eveything was outsourced to the lowest bidder, and this is the result. Outsourcing greatly reduces the possibility of ‘zero defect production’ since stringent quality assurance cannot be applied as the manufacture is scattered all over the place. Aircraft production is the last place to try and cut costs at the expense of good quality.

Feb 07, 2013 3:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WhyMeLord wrote:

Anyone familiar with aircraft design and build methodologies knows and appreciates that something is seriously wrong with this aircraft. Most eveything was outsourced to the lowest bidder, and this is the result. Outsourcing greatly reduces the possibility of ‘zero defect production’ since stringent quality assurance cannot be applied as the manufacture is scattered all over the place. Aircraft production is the last place to try and cut costs at the expense of good quality.

Feb 07, 2013 3:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PapaDisco wrote:

Sheesh. More NTSB grandstanding. Of course the battery certification needs to be re-examined when you have repeated failure of a component and it’s failing within its design specifications and failing in a manner outside of its predicted failure mode. This has been known for weeks, don’t call a press conference like it’s a new discovery you can demonstrate your safety bona fides with. What is wrong with these people?!

Feb 07, 2013 5:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Neurochuck wrote:

There was a report that data recorded about the battery prior to the fire could not be recovered, because the memory was mounted on a board with the battery, and was destroyed by the fire.
That raises questions about the competence of the designers, or the design / cost tradeoffs of management, and a “see no evil” approach of regulatory reviewers.

Feb 07, 2013 5:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WJL wrote:

Actually there are been a lot more than 2 incidents if you take into account that the Japanese airlines have replaced the batteries many times during the last year. Obviously the batteries were failing and need replacement.

Feb 08, 2013 3:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.