UPDATE 3-Boeing proposes full 787 battery fix to FAA-sources

Comments (6)
Scudrunner62 wrote:

OK…let me see if I understand this correctly. The original intent of using the new technology battery was for weight savings on the new 787. One of the proposed containment fixes for the battery fires is to encase the whole battery in a half inch thick stainless steel box? How is that going too work out for you on weight savings? Sometimes, you’ve just got too scratch the head and wonder.

Feb 22, 2013 6:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flysafe wrote:

None of this is new; SIX YEARS of lies and deception by Boeing execs.

Boeing had six years to get this right following the fire and explosion that occurred in 2006 during tests of the battery and charger.

The cut and paste, copycat media stories being circulated this week are devoid of any research and are an insult to your intelligence.

Boeing executives are banking on the idea that no one will Google the fire at Securaplane Technologies or the federal lawsuit brought against them when a technician refused to ship defective product to Boeing and was fired. Boeing execs have managed to delude the public into thinking there is no connection between the batteries and the charging system that energizes and manages them closely. If you believe this, you’ve become their sock puppet.

More than a few Boeing insiders and test pilots, NASA engineers, military officers and experts on lithium ion battery technology have ridiculed Boeing over this and strongly feel that the 787 fiasco represents a low point for Boeing and a catastrophic loss of credibility for the government for serving as Boeing’s lap dog when the first issues arose.

The EU and World trade Organization have sanctioned Boeing for 12 BILLION dollars as punishment for utilizing 5.3 billion dollars of YOUR taxpayer dollars in subsidies in the development of the 787-which is interesting, since the highly outsourced aircraft has also served as a shopping cart for transferring unique Boeing technologies overseas.

The battery containment as proposed by Boeing represents a token gesture; Boeing’s own work on this is an admission that it can still catch fire-and yet, better technologies are already available.

You are not going to see and will not be provided adequate proof that the system is safe, and Boeing expects you to buy into their credibility, after misleading the public and asserting the aircraft was safe over six years after the first of several spectacular fires and incidents with the batteries.

In the end, Boeing did get one thing right; they have counted on the public to trust the media, and they have banked well on apathy and a technically illiterate populace that doesn’t know when it’s getting scammed.
Enjoy your next flight; anyone who falls for Boeing’s position is already high as a kite.

Feb 23, 2013 12:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
Joblo1 wrote:

If BOEING wants the answer, go to SANDIA LABS.

The problem is the battery itself and everyone knows it.

They are mitigating risk, not eliminating it.

The NTSB hopefully will not accept that as well should the FAA, but since the FAA has been in bed with BOEING from the start that won’t happen.

Feb 23, 2013 6:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Joblo1 wrote:

If BOEING wants the answer, go to SANDIA LABS.

The problem is the battery itself and everyone knows it.

They are mitigating risk, not eliminating it.

The NTSB hopefully will not accept that as well should the FAA, but since the FAA has been in bed with BOEING from the start that won’t happen.

Feb 23, 2013 6:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Joblo1 wrote:

If BOEING wants the answer, go to SANDIA LABS.

The problem is the battery itself and everyone knows it.

They are mitigating risk, not eliminating it.

The NTSB hopefully will not accept that as well should the FAA, but since the FAA has been in bed with BOEING from the start that won’t happen.

Feb 23, 2013 6:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Joblo1 wrote:

If BOEING wants the answer, go to SANDIA LABS.

The problem is the battery itself and everyone knows it.

They are mitigating risk, not eliminating it.

The NTSB hopefully will not accept that as well should the FAA, but since the FAA has been in bed with BOEING from the start that won’t happen.

Feb 23, 2013 6:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.