Re: Is the 787 a failure ?

[Transition Zone]

Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:23:55 -0500
Local: Thurs, Dec 23 2010 9:23 pm

JF Mezei > wrote:
>
> On December 23rd, Boeing announced it is now resuming flight testing on
> ZA004.
> They have updated the power distrubution *software* and will test this,
> along with deployment of RAT before resuming normal testing for
> certification.
> So it appears that the hammer that was left in some electrical cabinet
> probably highlighted some software problems. Thankfully, updating
> software is less tedious than having to dismantly, change a part and
> reassemble the number of 787s already built.

A Week Boeing Would Like To Forget
By Alex Zolbert, CNN, updated 2:01 PM EST, Thu January 10, 2013

More concerns for Dreamliner - (CNN) -- Some passengers pay no
attention to what type of airplane they'll be flying on. Others are
obsessed.
I'd put myself in the middle of the pack, mainly due to the new planes
on offer from Airbus and Boeing.
So I was in slightly better spirits this week, as I boarded the 11-
hour United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo this week.
It was my first chance to fly on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
But the trip quickly descended into -- certainly not a nightmare --
but definitely a headache.
Dreamliner catches fire at airport

It's a drill millions of travelers know all too well.
After starting the taxi out to the runway Monday morning, we were
informed that there was an issue with the computer system, and they
were unable to start one of the plane's engines. We remained onboard
for nearly 3 hours, as flight attendants sheepishly offered cups of
water to frustrated passengers.
Eventually we disembarked.
A delay of four hours turned into five, then six, seven ... and the
flight was eventually canceled.
We then had the pleasure of spending the night at an airport hotel
that seemed to have been last updated around the time commercial air
travel started.
It was then that I realized we weren't the only ones encountering
issues with the Dreamliner on Monday.
A Japan Airlines' 787 caught fire in Boston after passengers
disembarked.

Boeing said the fire was traced to a battery unit that helps to power
electrical systems when the engines are idle -- typically while a
plane is being serviced or cleaned. And the company says it's
cooperating with investigators.
As Tuesday morning arrived, we were back on board another United
Airlines' Dreamliner in Los Angeles.
But in a rather comical turn of events, the second plane never left
the gate.
We were told there was an issue with the paperwork filed with the FAA.
More than a day late, many coffees, and very little sleep later, the
third time finally proved to be the charm -- more than 24 hours after
our scheduled departure.
But as we finally took to the skies, more Dreamliner issues were
unfolding.
Another Japan Airlines' 787 in Boston had to scrap a takeoff on
Tuesday due to a fuel leak. And an ANA Dreamliner flight was canceled
in Japan on Wednesday, because of a glitch with its brake system.
But Boeing is standing by its latest aircraft. The company's chief
project engineer, Mike Sinnett, says he is "100% convinced the
airplane is safe to fly."

Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
have "growing pains."
But what is very clear is this was a week that Boeing would certainly
like to forget.
After a nearly 40-hour trip back home, I'll second that.

-- http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/business/dreamliner-los-angeles/

[Vaughn]

On 1/10/2013 3:02 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
> Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
> have "growing pains."

Exactly! The list of aircraft that had to endure a year or three of
teething problems before going on to give decades of excellent service
is long and filled with many famous civil and military aircraft.

The title of this thread is pure nonsense.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:02:16 PM UTC-5, Transition Zone wrote:
> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:23:55 -0500
>
> Local: Thurs, Dec 23 2010 9:23 pm
>
>
>
> JF Mezei > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > On December 23rd, Boeing announced it is now resuming flight testing on
>
> > ZA004.
>
> > They have updated the power distrubution *software* and will test this,
>
> > along with deployment of RAT before resuming normal testing for
>
> > certification.
>
> > So it appears that the hammer that was left in some electrical cabinet
>
> > probably highlighted some software problems. Thankfully, updating
>
> > software is less tedious than having to dismantly, change a part and
>
> > reassemble the number of 787s already built.
>
>
>
> A Week Boeing Would Like To Forget
>
> By Alex Zolbert, CNN, updated 2:01 PM EST, Thu January 10, 2013
>
>
>
> More concerns for Dreamliner - (CNN) -- Some passengers pay no
>
> attention to what type of airplane they'll be flying on. Others are
>
> obsessed.
>
> I'd put myself in the middle of the pack, mainly due to the new planes
>
> on offer from Airbus and Boeing.
>
> So I was in slightly better spirits this week, as I boarded the 11-
>
> hour United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo this week.
>
> It was my first chance to fly on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
>
> But the trip quickly descended into -- certainly not a nightmare --
>
> but definitely a headache.
>
> Dreamliner catches fire at airport
>
>
>
> It's a drill millions of travelers know all too well.
>
> After starting the taxi out to the runway Monday morning, we were
>
> informed that there was an issue with the computer system, and they
>
> were unable to start one of the plane's engines. We remained onboard
>
> for nearly 3 hours, as flight attendants sheepishly offered cups of
>
> water to frustrated passengers.
>
> Eventually we disembarked.
>
> A delay of four hours turned into five, then six, seven ... and the
>
> flight was eventually canceled.
>
> We then had the pleasure of spending the night at an airport hotel
>
> that seemed to have been last updated around the time commercial air
>
> travel started.
>
> It was then that I realized we weren't the only ones encountering
>
> issues with the Dreamliner on Monday.
>
> A Japan Airlines' 787 caught fire in Boston after passengers
>
> disembarked.
>
>
>
> Boeing said the fire was traced to a battery unit that helps to power
>
> electrical systems when the engines are idle -- typically while a
>
> plane is being serviced or cleaned. And the company says it's
>
> cooperating with investigators.
>
> As Tuesday morning arrived, we were back on board another United
>
> Airlines' Dreamliner in Los Angeles.
>
> But in a rather comical turn of events, the second plane never left
>
> the gate.
>
> We were told there was an issue with the paperwork filed with the FAA.
>
> More than a day late, many coffees, and very little sleep later, the
>
> third time finally proved to be the charm -- more than 24 hours after
>
> our scheduled departure.
>
> But as we finally took to the skies, more Dreamliner issues were
>
> unfolding.
>
> Another Japan Airlines' 787 in Boston had to scrap a takeoff on
>
> Tuesday due to a fuel leak. And an ANA Dreamliner flight was canceled
>
> in Japan on Wednesday, because of a glitch with its brake system.
>
> But Boeing is standing by its latest aircraft. The company's chief
>
> project engineer, Mike Sinnett, says he is "100% convinced the
>
> airplane is safe to fly."
>
>
>
> Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
>
> have "growing pains."
>
> But what is very clear is this was a week that Boeing would certainly
>
> like to forget.
>
> After a nearly 40-hour trip back home, I'll second that.
>
>
>
> -- http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/business/dreamliner-los-angeles/

Boeing located their Dreamliner
Manufacturing facility in North Charleston,
S.C. to circumvent the pressure being leveraged
at them by the IAMAW (International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers). By
sidestepping their responsibility of duly
compensating labor and talent, they have
now gotten what they've paid for. There is
a long history in South Carolina of thought
indoctrination which leads to subservience.

This tradition finds it's roots all the
way back to slavery, and cotton-picking.
After the emancipation, share-cropping was
prevalent which was really a different name
for almost the same arrangement. Eventually,
after decades... textile production became
the dominant livelihood. Still, though, the
factories held their workers on a short
leash, even telling them when to go to bed,
what to wear, when to pray and where to live.
Again, not much of a transition.

Today, in 2012 there is a multitude of
industry in South Carolina, but, there
remains a vestige of philosophy that the
worker is the property of the man, that
he keeps his mouth shut and asks no
questions. Unions are seen *by workers* as
inherently bad, yet they can't really tell
you why beyond what they're told to think.

So good luck Boeing. You are a great
corporation, and yes, carbon-fiber was
the right move. When you finally transition
to the blended-body design and electric
propulsion you will have come full circle.
Just remember... you get what you pay for.

Also, I really question the implementation
of JATO bottles for this design and mission.
Whatever dude, use ammonium perchlorate for
best results.

Good night and good luck.

--
Mark

[Vaughn]

I still think it's silly to use the word "failure" but there is more bad
news. "All Nippon Airways has grounded its fleet of 17 Boeing 787
aircraft after one was forced to make an emergency landing because of
battery problems."


Vaughn

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:01:51 PM UTC-5, Vaughn wrote:
> I still think it's silly to use the word "failure" but there is more bad
>
> news. "All Nippon Airways has grounded its fleet of 17 Boeing 787
>
> aircraft after one was forced to make an emergency landing because of
>
> battery problems."
>
>
>
>
>
> Vaughn

1. In no way can one call this ship a failure. It
is simply still "teething".

2. Lithium batteries are safe and appropriate.
Anything will catch fire, including a rock, if
you put enough voltage to it. The industries
are still learning how to integrate their BMS
with their batteries without having to learn it
empirically.


"The BMS designers may have used Mosfets or Relay contactors. Where the BMS control elements are Mosfets they require sizing for load current and thermal management. If the designers got that wrong, the N Mosfets could burn out with collateral damage to the PCB, possibly causing a short circuit on the board. Relay contactors are more robust and generally the power path is not through the BMS PCB.

BMS design for large format batteries such as those on the Dreamliner requires a conservative approach including secondary cell-by-cell overvoltage protection. According to Ken, this requires an understanding of the full aircraft system, something that may have been tough to come by before the aircraft was operational."

http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/5190/How-Battery-Failure-Grounded-the-Boeing-Dreamliner.aspx

--
Mark
(Post submitted from Dunkin' Doughnuts)

[george152]

On 20/01/13 00:38, wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:01:51 PM UTC-5, Vaughn wrote:
>> I still think it's silly to use the word "failure" but there is more bad
>>
>> news. "All Nippon Airways has grounded its fleet of 17 Boeing 787
>>
>> aircraft after one was forced to make an emergency landing because of
>>
>> battery problems."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Vaughn
>
> 1. In no way can one call this ship a failure. It
> is simply still "teething".
>
> 2. Lithium batteries are safe and appropriate.
> Anything will catch fire, including a rock, if
> you put enough voltage to it. The industries
> are still learning how to integrate their BMS
> with their batteries without having to learn it
> empirically.
>
>
> "The BMS designers may have used Mosfets or Relay contactors. Where the BMS control elements are Mosfets they require sizing for load current and thermal management. If the designers got that wrong, the N Mosfets could burn out with collateral damage to the PCB, possibly causing a short circuit on the board. Relay contactors are more robust and generally the power path is not through the BMS PCB.
>
> BMS design for large format batteries such as those on the Dreamliner requires a conservative approach including secondary cell-by-cell overvoltage protection. According to Ken, this requires an understanding of the full aircraft system, something that may have been tough to come by before the aircraft was operational."
>
> http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/5190/How-Battery-Failure-Grounded-the-Boeing-Dreamliner.aspx
>

And there are those who want electric powered C172s

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, January 19, 2013 2:16:17 PM UTC-5, george wrote:
> On 20/01/13 00:38, wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:01:51 PM UTC-5, Vaughn wrote:
>
> >> I still think it's silly to use the word "failure" but there is more bad
>
> >>
>
> >> news. "All Nippon Airways has grounded its fleet of 17 Boeing 787
>
> >>
>
> >> aircraft after one was forced to make an emergency landing because of
>
> >>
>
> >> battery problems."
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Vaughn
>
> >
>
> > 1. In no way can one call this ship a failure. It
>
> > is simply still "teething".
>
> >
>
> > 2. Lithium batteries are safe and appropriate.
>
> > Anything will catch fire, including a rock, if
>
> > you put enough voltage to it. The industries
>
> > are still learning how to integrate their BMS
>
> > with their batteries without having to learn it
>
> > empirically.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "The BMS designers may have used Mosfets or Relay contactors. Where the BMS control elements are Mosfets they require sizing for load current and thermal management. If the designers got that wrong, the N Mosfets could burn out with collateral damage to the PCB, possibly causing a short circuit on the board. Relay contactors are more robust and generally the power path is not through the BMS PCB.
>
> >
>
> > BMS design for large format batteries such as those on the Dreamliner requires a conservative approach including secondary cell-by-cell overvoltage protection. According to Ken, this requires an understanding of the full aircraft system, something that may have been tough to come by before the aircraft was operational."
>
> >
>
> > http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/5190/How-Battery-Failure-Grounded-the-Boeing-Dreamliner.aspx
>
> >
>
>
>
> And there are those who want electric powered C172s

Ah, that's easy compared to designing
a dreamliner from scratch. One must manage
the heat sink.

Just think if everything had always been electric
(Henry Ford's wife drove an electric car), and now
all of a sudden we discovered gasoline and jet fuel
but knew little about volatility management.

You think there might occur a fire or two? LOL,
in fact, there still is.

--
Mark

[Transition Zone]

On Jan 10, 6:46*pm, Vaughn > wrote:
> On 1/10/2013 3:02 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
>
> > Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
> > have "growing pains."
>
> Exactly! *The list of aircraft that had to endure a year or three of
> teething problems before going on to give decades of excellent service
> is long and filled with many famous civil and military aircraft.
>
> The title of this thread is pure nonsense.

The last time a plane was grounded was what? 1979? That's a big
deal. I remember the A320 had an early scuff-up when it started out,
too. In this case, back up mechanisms didn't seem like they were
there.

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Transition Zone" > wrote in message
news:4de25f69-93af-479e-88c6-
>The last time a plane was grounded was what? 1979? That's a big
>deal. I remember the A320 had an early scuff-up when it started out,
>too. In this case, back up mechanisms didn't seem like they were
>there.

This isn't the first problem with Lithium batteries:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07011.html

[Vaughn]

On 1/25/2013 6:17 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
> The last time a plane was grounded was what? 1979? That's a big
> deal. I remember the A320 had an early scuff-up when it started out,

The A300 was certainly a candidate for grounding after one lost a
vertical stabilizer in 2001 for no apparent reason. Vital parts
failing, falling off, and causing a plane crash with 100% fatalities
sounds a whole lot more difficult to fix that the 787's electrical
problem.

What saved the A300 from grounding? It had been in service since the
late 70's, and therefore had an extensive record of safe service, and
there were hundreds in use so grounding them would have caused worldwide
travel disruption. None of that is true of the 787.

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Jan 10, 2:02*pm, Transition Zone > wrote:
> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:23:55 -0500
> Local: Thurs, Dec 23 2010 9:23 pm
>
> JF Mezei > wrote:
>
> > On December 23rd, Boeing announced it is now resuming flight testing on
> > ZA004.
> > They have updated the power distrubution *software* and will test this,
> > along with deployment of RAT before resuming normal testing for
> > certification.
> > So it appears that the hammer that was left in some electrical cabinet
> > probably highlighted some software problems. Thankfully, updating
> > software is less tedious than having to dismantly, change a part and
> > reassemble the number of 787s already built.
>
> A Week Boeing Would Like To Forget
> By Alex Zolbert, CNN, updated 2:01 PM EST, Thu January 10, 2013
>
> More concerns for Dreamliner - (CNN) -- Some passengers pay no
> attention to what type of airplane they'll be flying on. Others are
> obsessed.
> I'd put myself in the middle of the pack, mainly due to the new planes
> on offer from Airbus and Boeing.
> So I was in slightly better spirits this week, as I boarded the 11-
> hour United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo this week.
> It was my first chance to fly on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
> But the trip quickly descended into -- certainly not a nightmare --
> but definitely a headache.
> Dreamliner catches fire at airport
>
> It's a drill millions of travelers know all too well.
> After starting the taxi out to the runway Monday morning, we were
> informed that there was an issue with the computer system, and they
> were unable to start one of the plane's engines. We remained onboard
> for nearly 3 hours, as flight attendants sheepishly offered cups of
> water to frustrated passengers.
> Eventually we disembarked.
> A delay of four hours turned into five, then six, seven ... and the
> flight was eventually canceled.
> We then had the pleasure of spending the night at an airport hotel
> that seemed to have been last updated around the time commercial air
> travel started.
> It was then that I realized we weren't the only ones encountering
> issues with the Dreamliner on Monday.
> A Japan Airlines' 787 caught fire in Boston after passengers
> disembarked.
>
> Boeing said the fire was traced to a battery unit that helps to power
> electrical systems when the engines are idle -- typically while a
> plane is being serviced or cleaned. And the company says it's
> cooperating with investigators.
> As Tuesday morning arrived, we were back on board another United
> Airlines' Dreamliner in Los Angeles.
> But in a rather comical turn of events, the second plane never left
> the gate.
> We were told there was an issue with the paperwork filed with the FAA.
> More than a day late, many coffees, and very little sleep later, the
> third time finally proved to be the charm -- more than 24 hours after
> our scheduled departure.
> But as we finally took to the skies, more Dreamliner issues were
> unfolding.
> Another Japan Airlines' 787 in Boston had to scrap a takeoff on
> Tuesday due to a fuel leak. And an ANA Dreamliner flight was canceled
> in Japan on Wednesday, because of a glitch with its brake system.
> But Boeing is standing by its latest aircraft. The company's chief
> project engineer, Mike Sinnett, says he is "100% convinced the
> airplane is safe to fly."
>
> Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
> have "growing pains."
> But what is very clear is this was a week that Boeing would certainly
> like to forget.
> After a nearly 40-hour trip back home, I'll second that.
>
> --http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/business/dreamliner-los-angeles/

BIG problem.

The batteries are obviously being overcharged..a system problem.

To fix the problem and have the recertifications will take time..and
BIG dollars until the plane files again.

I suspect it is a failure to properly oversee system integration
within Boeing.

And where there is smoke there is fire...if the electrical system has
not been properly reviewed it is a KEY signal that there are other
similar oversights.

Bottom line..if I were actively flying I would NOT fly the 787 for
years...let someone else be the lab rat.

TMT

TMT

[Dave Doe]

In article <e0946792-7772-4dd6-9c22-f053444d4e44
@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, , Too_Many_Tools
says...
>
> On Jan 10, 2:02*pm, Transition Zone > wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:23:55 -0500
> > Local: Thurs, Dec 23 2010 9:23 pm
> >
> > JF Mezei > wrote:
> >
> > > On December 23rd, Boeing announced it is now resuming flight testing on
> > > ZA004.
> > > They have updated the power distrubution *software* and will test this,
> > > along with deployment of RAT before resuming normal testing for
> > > certification.
> > > So it appears that the hammer that was left in some electrical cabinet
> > > probably highlighted some software problems. Thankfully, updating
> > > software is less tedious than having to dismantly, change a part and
> > > reassemble the number of 787s already built.
> >
> > A Week Boeing Would Like To Forget
> > By Alex Zolbert, CNN, updated 2:01 PM EST, Thu January 10, 2013
> >
> > More concerns for Dreamliner - (CNN) -- Some passengers pay no
> > attention to what type of airplane they'll be flying on. Others are
> > obsessed.
> > I'd put myself in the middle of the pack, mainly due to the new planes
> > on offer from Airbus and Boeing.
> > So I was in slightly better spirits this week, as I boarded the 11-
> > hour United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo this week.
> > It was my first chance to fly on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
> > But the trip quickly descended into -- certainly not a nightmare --
> > but definitely a headache.
> > Dreamliner catches fire at airport
> >
> > It's a drill millions of travelers know all too well.
> > After starting the taxi out to the runway Monday morning, we were
> > informed that there was an issue with the computer system, and they
> > were unable to start one of the plane's engines. We remained onboard
> > for nearly 3 hours, as flight attendants sheepishly offered cups of
> > water to frustrated passengers.
> > Eventually we disembarked.
> > A delay of four hours turned into five, then six, seven ... and the
> > flight was eventually canceled.
> > We then had the pleasure of spending the night at an airport hotel
> > that seemed to have been last updated around the time commercial air
> > travel started.
> > It was then that I realized we weren't the only ones encountering
> > issues with the Dreamliner on Monday.
> > A Japan Airlines' 787 caught fire in Boston after passengers
> > disembarked.
> >
> > Boeing said the fire was traced to a battery unit that helps to power
> > electrical systems when the engines are idle -- typically while a
> > plane is being serviced or cleaned. And the company says it's
> > cooperating with investigators.
> > As Tuesday morning arrived, we were back on board another United
> > Airlines' Dreamliner in Los Angeles.
> > But in a rather comical turn of events, the second plane never left
> > the gate.
> > We were told there was an issue with the paperwork filed with the FAA.
> > More than a day late, many coffees, and very little sleep later, the
> > third time finally proved to be the charm -- more than 24 hours after
> > our scheduled departure.
> > But as we finally took to the skies, more Dreamliner issues were
> > unfolding.
> > Another Japan Airlines' 787 in Boston had to scrap a takeoff on
> > Tuesday due to a fuel leak. And an ANA Dreamliner flight was canceled
> > in Japan on Wednesday, because of a glitch with its brake system.
> > But Boeing is standing by its latest aircraft. The company's chief
> > project engineer, Mike Sinnett, says he is "100% convinced the
> > airplane is safe to fly."
> >
> > Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
> > have "growing pains."
> > But what is very clear is this was a week that Boeing would certainly
> > like to forget.
> > After a nearly 40-hour trip back home, I'll second that.
> >
> > --http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/business/dreamliner-los-angeles/
>
> BIG problem.
>
> The batteries are obviously being overcharged..a system problem.
>
> To fix the problem and have the recertifications will take time..and
> BIG dollars until the plane files again.
>
> I suspect it is a failure to properly oversee system integration
> within Boeing.
>
> And where there is smoke there is fire...if the electrical system has
> not been properly reviewed it is a KEY signal that there are other
> similar oversights.
>
> Bottom line..if I were actively flying I would NOT fly the 787 for
> years...let someone else be the lab rat.

Or the wrong (read: cheap) lithium batteries? ...

http://www.luxresearchinc.com/news-and-events/press-releases/148.html


--
Duncan.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:00:39 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

> On Jan 10, 2:02Â*pm, Transition Zone > wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:23:55 -0500 Local: Thurs, Dec 23 2010 9:23 pm
>>
>> JF Mezei > wrote:
>>
>> > On December 23rd, Boeing announced it is now resuming flight testing
>> > on ZA004.
>> > They have updated the power distrubution *software* and will test
>> > this,
>> > along with deployment of RAT before resuming normal testing for
>> > certification.
>> > So it appears that the hammer that was left in some electrical
>> > cabinet probably highlighted some software problems. Thankfully,
>> > updating software is less tedious than having to dismantly, change a
>> > part and reassemble the number of 787s already built.
>>
>> A Week Boeing Would Like To Forget By Alex Zolbert, CNN, updated 2:01
>> PM EST, Thu January 10, 2013
>>
>> More concerns for Dreamliner - (CNN) -- Some passengers pay no
>> attention to what type of airplane they'll be flying on. Others are
>> obsessed.
>> I'd put myself in the middle of the pack, mainly due to the new planes
>> on offer from Airbus and Boeing.
>> So I was in slightly better spirits this week, as I boarded the 11-
>> hour United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo this week.
>> It was my first chance to fly on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
>> But the trip quickly descended into -- certainly not a nightmare -- but
>> definitely a headache.
>> Dreamliner catches fire at airport
>>
>> It's a drill millions of travelers know all too well.
>> After starting the taxi out to the runway Monday morning, we were
>> informed that there was an issue with the computer system, and they
>> were unable to start one of the plane's engines. We remained onboard
>> for nearly 3 hours, as flight attendants sheepishly offered cups of
>> water to frustrated passengers.
>> Eventually we disembarked.
>> A delay of four hours turned into five, then six, seven ... and the
>> flight was eventually canceled.
>> We then had the pleasure of spending the night at an airport hotel that
>> seemed to have been last updated around the time commercial air travel
>> started.
>> It was then that I realized we weren't the only ones encountering
>> issues with the Dreamliner on Monday.
>> A Japan Airlines' 787 caught fire in Boston after passengers
>> disembarked.
>>
>> Boeing said the fire was traced to a battery unit that helps to power
>> electrical systems when the engines are idle -- typically while a plane
>> is being serviced or cleaned. And the company says it's cooperating
>> with investigators.
>> As Tuesday morning arrived, we were back on board another United
>> Airlines' Dreamliner in Los Angeles.
>> But in a rather comical turn of events, the second plane never left the
>> gate.
>> We were told there was an issue with the paperwork filed with the FAA.
>> More than a day late, many coffees, and very little sleep later, the
>> third time finally proved to be the charm -- more than 24 hours after
>> our scheduled departure.
>> But as we finally took to the skies, more Dreamliner issues were
>> unfolding.
>> Another Japan Airlines' 787 in Boston had to scrap a takeoff on Tuesday
>> due to a fuel leak. And an ANA Dreamliner flight was canceled in Japan
>> on Wednesday, because of a glitch with its brake system.
>> But Boeing is standing by its latest aircraft. The company's chief
>> project engineer, Mike Sinnett, says he is "100% convinced the airplane
>> is safe to fly."
>>
>> Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
>> have "growing pains."
>> But what is very clear is this was a week that Boeing would certainly
>> like to forget.
>> After a nearly 40-hour trip back home, I'll second that.
>>
>> --http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/business/dreamliner-los-angeles/
>
> BIG problem.
>
> The batteries are obviously being overcharged..a system problem.
>
> To fix the problem and have the recertifications will take time..and BIG
> dollars until the plane files again.
>
> I suspect it is a failure to properly oversee system integration within
> Boeing.
>
> And where there is smoke there is fire...if the electrical system has
> not been properly reviewed it is a KEY signal that there are other
> similar oversights.
>
> Bottom line..if I were actively flying I would NOT fly the 787 for
> years...let someone else be the lab rat.
>
> TMT
>
> TMT

History from 2 years ago.

<http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2010/11/boeings-za002-
fire-update-poin.html>

Boeing says no big deal. It appears they ignored the problem from the
start. They don't seem to know that fires are a big deal on airplanes.

[Mr.B1ack[_3_]]

Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure.
Like anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far
these issues haven't caused any fatalities.

Now from a business point of view however ... the plane
may indeed be a failure. It's already got a bad reputation.
As problems with aircraft CAN be fatal, passengers seem
reluctant to fly on them - envisioning themselves burning
to death as they plummet from the skies.

If enough people won't fly on a 787 then there's no point
in airlines HAVING 787s ... and orders will start to be
cancelled. Boeing put a LOT of its money and reputation
on the line with this plane and - oversold its fantastic
wonderfullness - and this could be quite a disaster for
that company and the vast number of employees and
subcontractors involved.

So, I'm gonna offer an idea ... withdraw the aircraft
at once and refund all payments and pre-payments.

Yes, this IS severe ... but there's a part two involved ...

In a year or two, offer a "797" ... which will be
essentially the fixed-up debugged 787 with just
enough cosmetic differences so it'll seem like a
"new" model. This way Boeing gets to use 99% of
the money it spent on R&D - ie it doesn't have to
throw away the 787, just the name.

Furthermore, offer the '797' first in a CARGO variant
and let it rack up a ****load of time in this less
critical kind of service to prove its a worthy craft.
A year later, THEN offer the passenger version - with
its "Proven Perfomance" airframe.

Yes, it'll set Boeing back ... but it'll save it from
destruction. Better late profits than NO profits.

OR ... they can just dissolve the company now and merge
its remaining assets with Airbus. Easier, but not, IMHO,
really the best way to go.

[Delvin Benet]

On 1/25/2013 6:00 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>
> Bottom line..if I were actively flying I would NOT fly the 787 for
> years...

Grocery baggers like you don't do much air travel.

[Daryl]

On 1/25/2013 7:00 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2:02 pm, Transition Zone > wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:23:55 -0500
>> Local: Thurs, Dec 23 2010 9:23 pm
>>
>> JF Mezei > wrote:
>>
>>> On December 23rd, Boeing announced it is now resuming flight testing on
>>> ZA004.
>>> They have updated the power distrubution *software* and will test this,
>>> along with deployment of RAT before resuming normal testing for
>>> certification.
>>> So it appears that the hammer that was left in some electrical cabinet
>>> probably highlighted some software problems. Thankfully, updating
>>> software is less tedious than having to dismantly, change a part and
>>> reassemble the number of 787s already built.
>>
>> A Week Boeing Would Like To Forget
>> By Alex Zolbert, CNN, updated 2:01 PM EST, Thu January 10, 2013
>>
>> More concerns for Dreamliner - (CNN) -- Some passengers pay no
>> attention to what type of airplane they'll be flying on. Others are
>> obsessed.
>> I'd put myself in the middle of the pack, mainly due to the new planes
>> on offer from Airbus and Boeing.
>> So I was in slightly better spirits this week, as I boarded the 11-
>> hour United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo this week.
>> It was my first chance to fly on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
>> But the trip quickly descended into -- certainly not a nightmare --
>> but definitely a headache.
>> Dreamliner catches fire at airport
>>
>> It's a drill millions of travelers know all too well.
>> After starting the taxi out to the runway Monday morning, we were
>> informed that there was an issue with the computer system, and they
>> were unable to start one of the plane's engines. We remained onboard
>> for nearly 3 hours, as flight attendants sheepishly offered cups of
>> water to frustrated passengers.
>> Eventually we disembarked.
>> A delay of four hours turned into five, then six, seven ... and the
>> flight was eventually canceled.
>> We then had the pleasure of spending the night at an airport hotel
>> that seemed to have been last updated around the time commercial air
>> travel started.
>> It was then that I realized we weren't the only ones encountering
>> issues with the Dreamliner on Monday.
>> A Japan Airlines' 787 caught fire in Boston after passengers
>> disembarked.
>>
>> Boeing said the fire was traced to a battery unit that helps to power
>> electrical systems when the engines are idle -- typically while a
>> plane is being serviced or cleaned. And the company says it's
>> cooperating with investigators.
>> As Tuesday morning arrived, we were back on board another United
>> Airlines' Dreamliner in Los Angeles.
>> But in a rather comical turn of events, the second plane never left
>> the gate.
>> We were told there was an issue with the paperwork filed with the FAA.
>> More than a day late, many coffees, and very little sleep later, the
>> third time finally proved to be the charm -- more than 24 hours after
>> our scheduled departure.
>> But as we finally took to the skies, more Dreamliner issues were
>> unfolding.
>> Another Japan Airlines' 787 in Boston had to scrap a takeoff on
>> Tuesday due to a fuel leak. And an ANA Dreamliner flight was canceled
>> in Japan on Wednesday, because of a glitch with its brake system.
>> But Boeing is standing by its latest aircraft. The company's chief
>> project engineer, Mike Sinnett, says he is "100% convinced the
>> airplane is safe to fly."
>>
>> Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
>> have "growing pains."
>> But what is very clear is this was a week that Boeing would certainly
>> like to forget.
>> After a nearly 40-hour trip back home, I'll second that.
>>
>> --http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/business/dreamliner-los-angeles/
>
> BIG problem.
>
> The batteries are obviously being overcharged..a system problem.
>
> To fix the problem and have the recertifications will take time..and
> BIG dollars until the plane files again.
>
> I suspect it is a failure to properly oversee system integration
> within Boeing.
>
> And where there is smoke there is fire...if the electrical system has
> not been properly reviewed it is a KEY signal that there are other
> similar oversights.
>
> Bottom line..if I were actively flying I would NOT fly the 787 for
> years...let someone else be the lab rat.

It sounds like they are being overcharged. That is prevented by
a simple card addition that prevents it on only of overcharging
but undercharging. Easy fix.

Daryl

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Daryl]

On 1/25/2013 7:22 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:00:39 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>
>> On Jan 10, 2:02 pm, Transition Zone > wrote:
>>> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:23:55 -0500 Local: Thurs, Dec 23 2010 9:23 pm
>>>
>>> JF Mezei > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On December 23rd, Boeing announced it is now resuming flight testing
>>>> on ZA004.
>>>> They have updated the power distrubution *software* and will test
>>>> this,
>>>> along with deployment of RAT before resuming normal testing for
>>>> certification.
>>>> So it appears that the hammer that was left in some electrical
>>>> cabinet probably highlighted some software problems. Thankfully,
>>>> updating software is less tedious than having to dismantly, change a
>>>> part and reassemble the number of 787s already built.
>>>
>>> A Week Boeing Would Like To Forget By Alex Zolbert, CNN, updated 2:01
>>> PM EST, Thu January 10, 2013
>>>
>>> More concerns for Dreamliner - (CNN) -- Some passengers pay no
>>> attention to what type of airplane they'll be flying on. Others are
>>> obsessed.
>>> I'd put myself in the middle of the pack, mainly due to the new planes
>>> on offer from Airbus and Boeing.
>>> So I was in slightly better spirits this week, as I boarded the 11-
>>> hour United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo this week.
>>> It was my first chance to fly on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
>>> But the trip quickly descended into -- certainly not a nightmare -- but
>>> definitely a headache.
>>> Dreamliner catches fire at airport
>>>
>>> It's a drill millions of travelers know all too well.
>>> After starting the taxi out to the runway Monday morning, we were
>>> informed that there was an issue with the computer system, and they
>>> were unable to start one of the plane's engines. We remained onboard
>>> for nearly 3 hours, as flight attendants sheepishly offered cups of
>>> water to frustrated passengers.
>>> Eventually we disembarked.
>>> A delay of four hours turned into five, then six, seven ... and the
>>> flight was eventually canceled.
>>> We then had the pleasure of spending the night at an airport hotel that
>>> seemed to have been last updated around the time commercial air travel
>>> started.
>>> It was then that I realized we weren't the only ones encountering
>>> issues with the Dreamliner on Monday.
>>> A Japan Airlines' 787 caught fire in Boston after passengers
>>> disembarked.
>>>
>>> Boeing said the fire was traced to a battery unit that helps to power
>>> electrical systems when the engines are idle -- typically while a plane
>>> is being serviced or cleaned. And the company says it's cooperating
>>> with investigators.
>>> As Tuesday morning arrived, we were back on board another United
>>> Airlines' Dreamliner in Los Angeles.
>>> But in a rather comical turn of events, the second plane never left the
>>> gate.
>>> We were told there was an issue with the paperwork filed with the FAA.
>>> More than a day late, many coffees, and very little sleep later, the
>>> third time finally proved to be the charm -- more than 24 hours after
>>> our scheduled departure.
>>> But as we finally took to the skies, more Dreamliner issues were
>>> unfolding.
>>> Another Japan Airlines' 787 in Boston had to scrap a takeoff on Tuesday
>>> due to a fuel leak. And an ANA Dreamliner flight was canceled in Japan
>>> on Wednesday, because of a glitch with its brake system.
>>> But Boeing is standing by its latest aircraft. The company's chief
>>> project engineer, Mike Sinnett, says he is "100% convinced the airplane
>>> is safe to fly."
>>>
>>> Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
>>> have "growing pains."
>>> But what is very clear is this was a week that Boeing would certainly
>>> like to forget.
>>> After a nearly 40-hour trip back home, I'll second that.
>>>
>>> --http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/business/dreamliner-los-angeles/
>>
>> BIG problem.
>>
>> The batteries are obviously being overcharged..a system problem.
>>
>> To fix the problem and have the recertifications will take time..and BIG
>> dollars until the plane files again.
>>
>> I suspect it is a failure to properly oversee system integration within
>> Boeing.
>>
>> And where there is smoke there is fire...if the electrical system has
>> not been properly reviewed it is a KEY signal that there are other
>> similar oversights.
>>
>> Bottom line..if I were actively flying I would NOT fly the 787 for
>> years...let someone else be the lab rat.
>>
>> TMT
>>
>> TMT
>
> History from 2 years ago.
>
> <http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2010/11/boeings-za002-
> fire-update-poin.html>
>
> Boeing says no big deal. It appears they ignored the problem from the
> start. They don't seem to know that fires are a big deal on airplanes.
>

Shades of Toyota

Daryl

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[F. George McDuffee]

When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you
get it...
-----------------------

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack"
> wrote:

<snip>
>Now from a business point of view however ...
<snip>

These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined
as an event that was unanticipated in occupance and limited
in duration, clearly this is no emergency.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/69746-hart-smith-on-outsourcing.html

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/NATL-From-the-Start-Dreamliner-Jet-Program-Was-Rushed--188336221.html

http://www.laobserved.com/biz/2013/01/boeing_problems_draw.php

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2013/01/22/dreamliners-bad-news-is-getting-worse-and-not-just-for-boeing/

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1119071-where-boeing-went-wrong-with-its-787-dreamliner

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-boeing-787-ntsbbre90n08s-20130124,0,2349989.story

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-24/boeings-787-dreamliner-and-the-decline-of-innovation


Its all the unions fault ;-(


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

[Mr.B1ack[_3_]]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:

> When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get it...
> -----------------------
>
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>Now from a business point of view however ...
> <snip>
>
> These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an event
> that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration, clearly
> this is no emergency.

That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do
with how potential passengers should act or react.

Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap.
That's ALL it takes to destroy it.

[Vaughn]

On 1/25/2013 9:54 PM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
> As problems with aircraft CAN be fatal, passengers seem
> reluctant to fly on them - envisioning themselves burning
> to death as they plummet from the skies.
>
> If enough people won't fly on a 787

Sorry, that's just not reality. Most folks don't know or care what
model plane they are flying in. They walk down a jetway into a cabin,
and that's all they care about.

Further, we could make a pretty impressive list of planes that have had
terrible, well-known, accidents caused by design issues and continued in
popular service for decades.

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Daryl" > wrote in message
...
>
> It sounds like they are being overcharged. That is prevented by a
> simple card addition that prevents it on only of overcharging but
> undercharging. Easy fix.
>
> Daryl

The Lithium medical and electric vehicle packs I worked on were
controlled by ICs that monitored and recorded individual cell voltage
and overall charge and discharge current. Those are point measurements
that are easy to do. What's harder is detecting unexpected hot spots
away from the temperature sensors. Minor differences (improvements)
between the acceptance sample and production devices can change heat
flow paths.
http://www.mpoweruk.com/lithium_failures.htm

[Keith W[_4_]]

Vaughn wrote:
> On 1/25/2013 6:17 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
>> The last time a plane was grounded was what? 1979? That's a big
>> deal. I remember the A320 had an early scuff-up when it started out,
>
> The A300 was certainly a candidate for grounding after one lost a
> vertical stabilizer in 2001 for no apparent reason. Vital parts
> failing, falling off, and causing a plane crash with 100% fatalities
> sounds a whole lot more difficult to fix that the 787's electrical
> problem.
>

The fact that the NTSB enquiry showed that the fust officer had
overstressed the stabilizer by aggressive alternate full rudder
inputs at a relatively high airspeed was a pretty good candidate
for an 'apparent reason' as was the fact that the A300 had flown
into the wake turbulence of a JAL 747-400

Bottom line is that the pilot overstressed the airframe as
his use of alternate full rudder inputs resulted in large
angle of sideslip which tore off the stabilizer. The loads
imposed by the sideslip were more than double the design
limits.

The FAA airframe engineer stated that for any aircraft

" a maneuver with alternating rudder inputs was an extreme maneuver
and that, if the maneuver were performed, loads would build that
would exceed the current requirements. He further stated that, if two
sets of alternating rudder inputs were performed, a series of
dynamic maneuvers would start that could lead the airplane into
a severe dynamic situation where, at the proper frequency, this continued
application of this surface would allow the motion of the
airplane to build up to the point where the sideslip would become
excessive and overload the airplane "

The flight data recorder and CVR showed exactly such a sequence of
rudder inputs was made.

Keith

[Daryl]

On 1/26/2013 6:00 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Daryl" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> It sounds like they are being overcharged. That is prevented by a
>> simple card addition that prevents it on only of overcharging but
>> undercharging. Easy fix.
>>
>> Daryl
>
> The Lithium medical and electric vehicle packs I worked on were
> controlled by ICs that monitored and recorded individual cell voltage
> and overall charge and discharge current. Those are point measurements
> that are easy to do. What's harder is detecting unexpected hot spots
> away from the temperature sensors. Minor differences (improvements)
> between the acceptance sample and production devices can change heat
> flow paths.
> http://www.mpoweruk.com/lithium_failures.htm
>
>
>

I can see a problem that is being addressed in Electric Vehicles.
Heat and cold.

On an electric vehicle, getting the battery too cold will (not
can) result in a degrading of the performance of the cells. The
fix is adding an "Electric Blanket" to keep the battery warm (not
hot). The residual power required by the blanket is negligible.
You get back much more than you lose.

Heat. I can see problems with the Lipo batteries. The battery
they chose is one that is not on the list of Vehicle safe
batteries. It is the best, the highest output but with it comes
problems. Lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), for vehicles, is listed as
unstable compared to the rest. It's very suspeptable to heat.
And sitting on the ground running up on a hot day, the battery
compartment will sky rocket in heat. The safest to use is the
lead acid but it's very short lived in this application. To use
any Lipo battery, it requires a cooling and a heating system to
keep the battery at an optimal temperature. The LCO is just the
worst of the lot for overrunning (catching fire, generating
Oxygen when it burns) than any other Lipo battery.

The Fix? Get rid of the LCO and temperature control the battery
compartment. Even a Lead Acid doesn't like excessive cold or
heat. But it won't turn into a major oxygen fire. Sometimes,
newer isn't better. But the various other Lipo batteries are
safer than the LCO which has a proven track record of burning.

BTW, the LCO isn't the cheapest by far. The LipoMG battery is
the cheapest but it has a low service charge rate. The Lipo4 has
a decent service rate and is what is primarily used in various
vehicle applications. But, maybe, the old Lead Acids may be the
way to go on this one. They are the most stable and the most
safe if you keep them in a wide range of temperatures.

Newer isn't always better.

Daryl



--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Vaughn]

On 1/26/2013 8:18 AM, Keith W wrote:
> Bottom line is that the pilot overstressed the airframe as
> his use of alternate full rudder inputs resulted in large
> angle of sideslip which tore off the stabilizer. The loads
> imposed by the sideslip were more than double the design
> limits.

None of which excuses the design. Pilots are taught from day one that
full deflection of flight controls is generally permissible below a
certain magic "maneuvering speed" without causing harm to the airframe.
Given that the accident flight was in the climb phase, that plane was
almost certainly below that speed.

So this turned out to be a flight limitation that the pilots hadn't been
told about and was nowhere in the flight manual. This DESIGN DEFECT was
"fixed" by changing the flight manual to add new flight limitations and
retraining pilots. To be fair, I know of no other similar accidents
since then.

Going back to my central point, the A300 easily survived that negative
publicity, as will the 787.

[Keith Willshaw[_3_]]

Vaughn wrote:
> On 1/26/2013 8:18 AM, Keith W wrote:
>> Bottom line is that the pilot overstressed the airframe as
>> his use of alternate full rudder inputs resulted in large
>> angle of sideslip which tore off the stabilizer. The loads
>> imposed by the sideslip were more than double the design
>> limits.
>
> None of which excuses the design. Pilots are taught from day one that
> full deflection of flight controls is generally permissible below a
> certain magic "maneuvering speed" without causing harm to the
> airframe. Given that the accident flight was in the climb phase,
> that plane was almost certainly below that speed.
>

Trouble it was at that speed which at the altitude in
question was 250 knots. When the stabilizer failed the
speed was at 251 knots and the pilot had applied full power

> So this turned out to be a flight limitation that the pilots hadn't
> been told about and was nowhere in the flight manual.

True to an extent but the issue was not in an Airbus flight manual
but in an FAA document ( Title 14 CFR 25.1583, "Operating Limitations")

This stated that

<Quote>
that full application of rudder and aileron controls, as
well as maneuvers that involve angles of attack near
the stall, should be confined to speeds below this value."
<Quote>

This was found to be ambiguous in that it implied that multiple
full deflection inputs were safe at or below the safety speed.
This the NTSB and FAA found was not true for most large
transport aircraft and the FAA document was amended to
inform operators that operating at or below maneuvering speed
does NOT provide structural protection against multiple full control
inputs in one axis or full control inputs in more than one axis at the
same time

After the accident Boeing issued the following clarification to its users.

"Boeing aircraft are not designed to a requirement of full authority
rudder reversals from an "over yaw" condition. Sequential full
or nearly full authority rudder reversals may not be within the
structural design limits of the aircraft, even if the airspeed is
below the design manoeuvring speed. "


The AA flight training centre was using faulty
simulator training that encouraged the use multiple
cyclic full rudder inputs to control wake roll
problems and had fostered the mistaken belief that
the rudder limiter would prevent any bad results from
excessive inputs.

The extent of the forces caused by the rudder inputs may be
gauged from the fact that the flight data recorder showed
they caused alternate lateral accelerations of between
0.3 and 0.4 G

> This DESIGN
> DEFECT was "fixed" by changing the flight manual to add new flight
> limitations and retraining pilots. To be fair, I know of no other
> similar accidents since then.
>
> Going back to my central point, the A300 easily survived that negative
> publicity, as will the 787.

I am sure that it will, battery and charging system problems
should be easy to resolve.

Keith

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:
>
> > When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get it...
> > -----------------------
> >
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >>Now from a business point of view however ...
> > <snip>
> >
> > These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an event
> > that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration, clearly
> > this is no emergency.
>
> That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do
> with how potential passengers should act or react.
>
> Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap.
> That's ALL it takes to destroy it.


All planes are death traps. You can't pull over to a cloud & call for
a tow, for any of them.

[Transition Zone]

On Jan 25, 9:00*pm, Too_Many_Tools > wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2:02*pm, Transition Zone > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:23:55 -0500
> > Local: Thurs, Dec 23 2010 9:23 pm
>
> > JF Mezei > wrote:
>
> > > On December 23rd, Boeing announced it is now resuming flight testing on
> > > ZA004.
> > > They have updated the power distrubution *software* and will test this,
> > > along with deployment of RAT before resuming normal testing for
> > > certification.
> > > So it appears that the hammer that was left in some electrical cabinet
> > > probably highlighted some software problems. Thankfully, updating
> > > software is less tedious than having to dismantly, change a part and
> > > reassemble the number of 787s already built.
>
> > A Week Boeing Would Like To Forget
> > By Alex Zolbert, CNN, updated 2:01 PM EST, Thu January 10, 2013
>
> > More concerns for Dreamliner - (CNN) -- Some passengers pay no
> > attention to what type of airplane they'll be flying on. Others are
> > obsessed.
> > I'd put myself in the middle of the pack, mainly due to the new planes
> > on offer from Airbus and Boeing.
> > So I was in slightly better spirits this week, as I boarded the 11-
> > hour United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo this week.
> > It was my first chance to fly on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
> > But the trip quickly descended into -- certainly not a nightmare --
> > but definitely a headache.
> > Dreamliner catches fire at airport
>
> > It's a drill millions of travelers know all too well.
> > After starting the taxi out to the runway Monday morning, we were
> > informed that there was an issue with the computer system, and they
> > were unable to start one of the plane's engines. We remained onboard
> > for nearly 3 hours, as flight attendants sheepishly offered cups of
> > water to frustrated passengers.
> > Eventually we disembarked.
> > A delay of four hours turned into five, then six, seven ... and the
> > flight was eventually canceled.
> > We then had the pleasure of spending the night at an airport hotel
> > that seemed to have been last updated around the time commercial air
> > travel started.
> > It was then that I realized we weren't the only ones encountering
> > issues with the Dreamliner on Monday.
> > A Japan Airlines' 787 caught fire in Boston after passengers
> > disembarked.
>
> > Boeing said the fire was traced to a battery unit that helps to power
> > electrical systems when the engines are idle -- typically while a
> > plane is being serviced or cleaned. And the company says it's
> > cooperating with investigators.
> > As Tuesday morning arrived, we were back on board another United
> > Airlines' Dreamliner in Los Angeles.
> > But in a rather comical turn of events, the second plane never left
> > the gate.
> > We were told there was an issue with the paperwork filed with the FAA.
> > More than a day late, many coffees, and very little sleep later, the
> > third time finally proved to be the charm -- more than 24 hours after
> > our scheduled departure.
> > But as we finally took to the skies, more Dreamliner issues were
> > unfolding.
> > Another Japan Airlines' 787 in Boston had to scrap a takeoff on
> > Tuesday due to a fuel leak. And an ANA Dreamliner flight was canceled
> > in Japan on Wednesday, because of a glitch with its brake system.
> > But Boeing is standing by its latest aircraft. The company's chief
> > project engineer, Mike Sinnett, says he is "100% convinced the
> > airplane is safe to fly."
>
> > Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
> > have "growing pains."
> > But what is very clear is this was a week that Boeing would certainly
> > like to forget.
> > After a nearly 40-hour trip back home, I'll second that.
>
> > --http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/business/dreamliner-los-angeles/
>
> BIG problem.
>
> The batteries are obviously being overcharged..a system problem.
>
> To fix the problem and have the recertifications will take time..and
> BIG dollars until the plane files again.
>
> I suspect it is a failure to properly oversee system integration
> within Boeing.
>
> And where there is smoke there is fire...if the electrical system has
> not been properly reviewed it is a KEY signal that there are other
> similar oversights.
>
> Bottom line..if I were actively flying I would NOT fly the 787 for
> years...let someone else be the lab rat.

Other planes have made bad splashes into the market or service and
later fared better. Here, I think the battery system was being
strained; i.e. being used without a diesel (jet fuel) powered main
power unit, which all planes on the ground need. Probably human error.

[Transition Zone]

On Jan 25, 9:54*pm, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
> Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure.
> Like anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far
> these issues haven't caused any fatalities.

But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly fatalities
on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at Mulhouse-Habsheim
Airport. Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.

> In a year or two, offer a "797" ...

Beoing's 787 didn't have any fatalities. So, I'd say stick with the
current program. (especially, if Airbus weathered and overcame their
mistakes)

[Transition Zone]

On Jan 26, 11:28*am, "Michael A. Terrell" >
wrote:
> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:
>
> > > When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get it....
> > > -----------------------
>
> > > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
> > >>Now from a business point of view however ...
> > > <snip>
>
> > > These URLs may be of interest. *If an emergency is defined as an event
> > > that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration, clearly
> > > this is no emergency.
>
> > * *That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do
> > * *with how potential passengers should act or react.
>
> > * *Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap.
> > * *That's ALL it takes to destroy it.
>
> * *All planes are death traps.

No, this isn't the 1930's anymore.

> You can't pull over to a cloud & call for a tow, for any of them.

Since then, you hardly ever have crashes because of all-weather
designs, flight patterns and glide paths (in case you need to land).

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:42:01 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" >
wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:
>
>> When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get it...
>> -----------------------
>>
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>Now from a business point of view however ...
>> <snip>
>>
>> These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an event
>> that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration, clearly
>> this is no emergency.
>
> That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do
> with how potential passengers should act or react.
>
> Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap.
> That's ALL it takes to destroy it.

You are convinced passengers are convinced. There have been no deaths,
no injuries, and only limitted damage to this point. A minor tweek
will likely solve the battery problem. It appears to be a problem with
the APU not knowing how to handle Lithium batteries, as the problem
occurs when on the ground with the APU running the system.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 06:46:22 -0700, Daryl >
wrote:

>On 1/26/2013 6:00 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> "Daryl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> It sounds like they are being overcharged. That is prevented by a
>>> simple card addition that prevents it on only of overcharging but
>>> undercharging. Easy fix.
>>>
>>> Daryl
>>
>> The Lithium medical and electric vehicle packs I worked on were
>> controlled by ICs that monitored and recorded individual cell voltage
>> and overall charge and discharge current. Those are point measurements
>> that are easy to do. What's harder is detecting unexpected hot spots
>> away from the temperature sensors. Minor differences (improvements)
>> between the acceptance sample and production devices can change heat
>> flow paths.
>> http://www.mpoweruk.com/lithium_failures.htm
>>
>>
>>
>
>I can see a problem that is being addressed in Electric Vehicles.
> Heat and cold.
>
>On an electric vehicle, getting the battery too cold will (not
>can) result in a degrading of the performance of the cells. The
>fix is adding an "Electric Blanket" to keep the battery warm (not
>hot). The residual power required by the blanket is negligible.
> You get back much more than you lose.
>
>Heat. I can see problems with the Lipo batteries. The battery
>they chose is one that is not on the list of Vehicle safe
>batteries. It is the best, the highest output but with it comes
>problems. Lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), for vehicles, is listed as
>unstable compared to the rest. It's very suspeptable to heat.
>And sitting on the ground running up on a hot day, the battery
>compartment will sky rocket in heat. The safest to use is the
>lead acid but it's very short lived in this application. To use
>any Lipo battery, it requires a cooling and a heating system to
>keep the battery at an optimal temperature. The LCO is just the
>worst of the lot for overrunning (catching fire, generating
>Oxygen when it burns) than any other Lipo battery.
>
>The Fix? Get rid of the LCO and temperature control the battery
>compartment. Even a Lead Acid doesn't like excessive cold or
>heat. But it won't turn into a major oxygen fire. Sometimes,
>newer isn't better. But the various other Lipo batteries are
>safer than the LCO which has a proven track record of burning.

Lead acid is and has for quite some time been a "non-starter" for the
application - for good reason.Nicads have been the standard for
decades - and have their issues as well Lithium iron would be a better
choice .
>
>BTW, the LCO isn't the cheapest by far. The LipoMG battery is
>the cheapest but it has a low service charge rate. The Lipo4 has
>a decent service rate and is what is primarily used in various
>vehicle applications. But, maybe, the old Lead Acids may be the
>way to go on this one. They are the most stable and the most
>safe if you keep them in a wide range of temperatures.
>
>Newer isn't always better.
>
>Daryl

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:56:43 -0500, clare wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:42:01 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:
>>
>>> When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get it...
>>> -----------------------
>>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>Now from a business point of view however ...
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an event
>>> that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration, clearly
>>> this is no emergency.
>>
>> That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do with how potential
>> passengers should act or react.
>>
>> Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap. That's ALL it takes
>> to destroy it.
>
> You are convinced passengers are convinced. There have been no deaths,
> no injuries, and only limitted damage to this point. A minor tweek will
> likely solve the battery problem. It appears to be a problem with the
> APU not knowing how to handle Lithium batteries, as the problem occurs
> when on the ground with the APU running the system.

I love it when people who have no ****ing idea what's going on, make ****
up like "a minor tweek will fix it".

[Michael A. Terrell]

Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
> I love it when people who have no ****ing idea what's going on, make ****
> up like "a minor tweek will fix it".


Why? Just because that's what they said when they took you to the
veterinarian to have you neutered?

[Delvin Benet]

On 1/26/2013 5:56 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:42:01 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" >
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:
>>
>>> When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get it...
>>> -----------------------
>>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> Now from a business point of view however ...
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an event
>>> that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration, clearly
>>> this is no emergency.
>>
>> That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do
>> with how potential passengers should act or react.
>>
>> Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap.
>> That's ALL it takes to destroy it.
>
> You are convinced passengers are convinced. There have been no deaths,
> no injuries, and only limitted damage to this point. A minor tweek
> will likely solve the battery problem. It appears to be a problem with
> the APU not knowing how to handle Lithium batteries, as the problem
> occurs when on the ground with the APU running the system.

The planes have been grounded. They will fly again. When they do,
people will fly on them.

[Mr.B1ack[_3_]]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:

> On Jan 25, 9:54Â*pm, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>> Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like anything
>> complex and new it has a few issues. So far these issues haven't caused
>> any fatalities.
>
> But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly fatalities
> on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at Mulhouse-Habsheim
> Airport. Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.

Irrevelant.

It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being
dangerous.

That's all-important.

That's all that counts.

The 787 is *done*.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 00:51:59 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>
>> I love it when people who have no ****ing idea what's going on, make
>> **** up like "a minor tweek will fix it".
>
>
> Why? Just because that's what they said when they took you to the
> veterinarian to have you neutered?

Wow, you're clever. You must know everything given you have such a wit.

No, the point being that NO ONE knows what the problem is. If it was a
"minor tweek", they would have fixed it after the FIRST fire.

[Vaughn]

On 1/27/2013 2:19 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
> Irrevelant.
>
> It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being
> dangerous.
>
> That's all-important.

And also wrong. The average airline traveler has no clue what model
plane they are flying in.
>
> That's all that counts.
>
> The 787 is*done*.

Nonsense. It's barely entered operation, and it's way too early to make
that kind of judgement. This is a totally new plane working through the
inevitable kinks. If history serves as any guide, we will be flying in
787's and it's follow on models for many decades to come.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mr.B1ack > wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
>
>> On Jan 25, 9:54Â*pm, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>>> Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like anything
>>> complex and new it has a few issues. So far these issues haven't caused
>>> any fatalities.
>>
>> But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly fatalities
>> on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at Mulhouse-Habsheim
>> Airport. Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.
>
> Irrevelant.
>
> It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being
> dangerous.
>
> That's all-important.
>
> That's all that counts.
>
> The 787 is *done*.

Utter nonsense;

The average person doesn't have a clue there is any problem as they don't
read those little backpage articles about equipment problems.

Now, if one had burned up in flight killing a couple of hundred people,
then they would have noticed.

The recent in flight engine lightening strike and fire with no casualties
has gotten far more press than 787 battery issues.

<snip idioitic crossposts>

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:29:30 -0600, Marvin the Martian
> wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:56:43 -0500, clare wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:42:01 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:
>>>
>>>> When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get it...
>>>> -----------------------
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>Now from a business point of view however ...
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an event
>>>> that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration, clearly
>>>> this is no emergency.
>>>
>>> That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do with how potential
>>> passengers should act or react.
>>>
>>> Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap. That's ALL it takes
>>> to destroy it.
>>
>> You are convinced passengers are convinced. There have been no deaths,
>> no injuries, and only limitted damage to this point. A minor tweek will
>> likely solve the battery problem. It appears to be a problem with the
>> APU not knowing how to handle Lithium batteries, as the problem occurs
>> when on the ground with the APU running the system.
>
>I love it when people who have no ****ing idea what's going on, make ****
>up like "a minor tweek will fix it".
When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a
relatively minor tweek.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

> wrote:
> ...
> When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a
>relatively minor tweek.
> ...

I don't think replacing the batteries with a safer, heavier
technology and redesigning/recertifying the electrical systems
of the plane can even be called a "tweak," let alone a "minor
tweak."

|
| MIT Professor: Battery Fix Could Ground 787 Until 2014
| ...
| In a nutshell, Sadoway thinks that Boeing needs to monitor
| the temperature and cool each of the eight cells of the
| 787's lithium-ion battery or switch to an older battery
| technology that has a far better safety record -- nickel
| metal-hydride (NiMH).
|
| If Boeing opts to substitute NiMH for lithium-ion,
| certification could result in delays of up to a year --
| effectively grounding the 787 until 2014.
| ...
| When Sadoway got a look at the lithium-ion battery used in
| the 787, he was surprised by "the seeming absence of a
| cooling apparatus."
| ...
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2013/01/27/mit-professor-battery-fix-could-ground-787-until-2014/>

--bks

[george152]

On 28/01/13 08:13, wrote:

> When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a
> relatively minor tweek.
>
In 10 years time the B787 will still be flying with the same unit on
board and the pundits will be moaning about the inadequacies of the new
airliner coming into service

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:13:24 -0500, clare wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:29:30 -0600, Marvin the Martian
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:56:43 -0500, clare wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:42:01 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get
>>>>> it...
>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>Now from a business point of view however ...
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an
>>>>> event that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration,
>>>>> clearly this is no emergency.
>>>>
>>>> That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do with how
>>>> potential passengers should act or react.
>>>>
>>>> Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap. That's ALL it
>>>> takes to destroy it.
>>>
>>> You are convinced passengers are convinced. There have been no deaths,
>>> no injuries, and only limitted damage to this point. A minor tweek
>>> will likely solve the battery problem. It appears to be a problem with
>>> the APU not knowing how to handle Lithium batteries, as the problem
>>> occurs when on the ground with the APU running the system.
>>
>>I love it when people who have no ****ing idea what's going on, make
>>**** up like "a minor tweek will fix it".
> When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a
> relatively minor tweek.

Right. The APU is complex, ergo the solution will be simple.

Or maybe you're trying to say, the APU is simple, so the solution will be
simple.

Either way, you're ignoring the complexity of the entire electrical
system. Which kinda makes you claims absurd meaningless and laughable
prattle.

You sound good, tho'. Keep pontificating! Maybe you'll fool someone into
thinking you know something.

So, how many days has it been? Where is that simple tweek!?

LOL!

[Transition Zone]

On Jan 27, 2:19*am, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 9:54*pm, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
> >> Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like anything
> >> complex and new it has a few issues. So far these issues haven't caused
> >> any fatalities.
>
> > But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly fatalities
> > on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at Mulhouse-Habsheim
> > Airport. *Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.
>
> * *Irrevelant.
>
> * *It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being
> * *dangerous.

And the A320 didn't?

> That's all-important.
>
> That's all that counts.
>
>The 787 is *done*.

I *way* doubt that.

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:19:51 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

> > wrote:
>> ...
>> When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a
>>relatively minor tweek.
>> ...
>
>I don't think replacing the batteries with a safer, heavier
>technology and redesigning/recertifying the electrical systems
>of the plane can even be called a "tweak," let alone a "minor
>tweak."
>
You can be fairly safe to bet that the batteries will not be replaced
with heavier old tech batteries. The charging system will be fixed -
and you will be safe to bet it will be a "relatively minor tweek" to
the system. It will not be a total re-design of the APU system. The
batteries do not overheat if they are not abused. The charge control
system is abusing the battery, causing it to overheat. They may need
to redisign the battery pack to add cooling to prevent damage IF they
overheat - but the first thing is to fix the charging system so they
do NOT overheat.

I also question why they used lithium Cobalt batteries - slightly
higher energy density than the safer Lithium Iron Phosphate or Lithium
Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide batteries, at the expense of a higher
danger of thermal run-away. Perhaps a change to one or the other of
these chemistries instead of the Lithium Cobalts will be required as
well.
> |
> | MIT Professor: Battery Fix Could Ground 787 Until 2014
> | ...
> | In a nutshell, Sadoway thinks that Boeing needs to monitor
> | the temperature and cool each of the eight cells of the
> | 787's lithium-ion battery or switch to an older battery
> | technology that has a far better safety record -- nickel
> | metal-hydride (NiMH).

Anything with a potassium Hydroxide electrolyte is a poor choice in
aircraft with aluminum structure. The 787 has a lot of high strength
composite, but aluminum is still a structural component. The 2
materials do not peaceably co-exist - in case of a leak there are
risks - which have been managed so far with Ni-Cads in aircraft use -
but they are NOT benign. NiCad and NimH both ose pottassium Hydroxide.

They are also not immune to overheating - they just boil the
Pottassium Hydroxide out, damaging the plane instead of burning. Not
quite as serious, in the short term - but perhaps just as damaging in
the long term?

In my opinion, going back to NiCad or Nimh would be a big step
backwards - as well as requiring a complete recertification of the
system.
> |
> | If Boeing opts to substitute NiMH for lithium-ion,
> | certification could result in delays of up to a year --
> | effectively grounding the 787 until 2014.
> | ...
> | When Sadoway got a look at the lithium-ion battery used in
> | the 787, he was surprised by "the seeming absence of a
> | cooling apparatus."
> | ...
><http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2013/01/27/mit-professor-battery-fix-could-ground-787-until-2014/>
>
> --bks

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:25:16 -0600, Marvin the Martian
> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:13:24 -0500, clare wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:29:30 -0600, Marvin the Martian
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:56:43 -0500, clare wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:42:01 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get
>>>>>> it...
>>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>Now from a business point of view however ...
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an
>>>>>> event that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration,
>>>>>> clearly this is no emergency.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do with how
>>>>> potential passengers should act or react.
>>>>>
>>>>> Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap. That's ALL it
>>>>> takes to destroy it.
>>>>
>>>> You are convinced passengers are convinced. There have been no deaths,
>>>> no injuries, and only limitted damage to this point. A minor tweek
>>>> will likely solve the battery problem. It appears to be a problem with
>>>> the APU not knowing how to handle Lithium batteries, as the problem
>>>> occurs when on the ground with the APU running the system.
>>>
>>>I love it when people who have no ****ing idea what's going on, make
>>>**** up like "a minor tweek will fix it".
>> When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a
>> relatively minor tweek.
>
>Right. The APU is complex, ergo the solution will be simple.
>
>Or maybe you're trying to say, the APU is simple, so the solution will be
>simple.
>
>Either way, you're ignoring the complexity of the entire electrical
>system. Which kinda makes you claims absurd meaningless and laughable
>prattle.
>
>You sound good, tho'. Keep pontificating! Maybe you'll fool someone into
>thinking you know something.
>
>So, how many days has it been? Where is that simple tweek!?
>
>LOL!
Just because the tweek will be minor does not mean figuring it out
will be simple. And getting it signed off will not be a simple matter
either - we ARE dealing with certified aircraft.
I suspect there will be some reprogramming of the charging system and
a possible switch to Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiPo ) cells from the LCo
(Lithium Cobalt Oxide) batteries that caused a lot of consternation in
portable devices, like laptops, a few years ago. I cannot understand
why LCo batteries were spec'ed instead of LIPo or LNMC cells. The
relatively minor power density advantage is hard to balance against
the known issues with LCO cells. The LCO cells CAN be safely used
with proper controls - but the risk is still there.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

> wrote:
>> ...
>You can be fairly safe to bet that the batteries will not be replaced
>with heavier old tech batteries. The charging system will be fixed -
> ...

|
| U.S. investigators examining the battery charger from a
| Boeing Co. (BA) 787 that caught fire this month in Boston
| have found no evidence of flaws that could have caused the
| incident.
| ...
<http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-01-27/battery-charger-aboard-787-cleared-in-fire-investigation>

--bks

[F. George McDuffee]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:25:16 -0600, Marvin the Martian
> wrote:

<snip>
>Either way, you're ignoring the complexity of the entire electrical
>system.
<snip>

Which ignores the fact that the plane was three years late
in delivery, giving ample time to have constructed a
prototype or mock-up of the entire battery/power system
with extra sensors, and conducted exhaustive
cycling/simulations including charging/powering with a
verity of GPUs. This would appear to have been highly
prudent given the news items of electric cars with the same
or similar power storage bursting into flames, and the loss
of an entire factory when a prototype cell under test
exploded.

Indeed, with the advantage of hindsight, the type of lithium
cells used should have been retrofitted to some existing
aircraft (cargo to start) and tested under actual
operating/flying conditions after these were proven "safe."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304444604577337704120872184.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-11/gm-volt-battery-fire-is-said-to-prompt-u-s-probe-into-electric-car-safety.html

http://www.battcon.com/PapersFinal2007/ScuillaPaper2007.pdf


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

[Vaughn]

On 1/27/2013 5:39 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
> giving ample time to have constructed a
> prototype or mock-up of the entire battery/power system
> with extra sensors, and conducted exhaustive
> cycling/simulations including charging/powering with a
> verity of GPUs.

Do you actually have a reference that says they never did any of that
stuff? Or are you just blowing smoke?

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| Washington - Further testing still has not found the cause
| of a battery fire aboard a Boeing 787 Dreamliner in Boston
| earlier this month, the National Transportation Safety
| Board said on Sunday.
|
| In a statement released on Sunday, the safety regulator
| said "no obvious anomalies were found" in its initial
| investigation of an undamaged battery aboard the plane and
| that a more detailed examination would follow.
| ...
| Oliver McGee, an aerospace and mechanical engineer who was
| a deputy assistant secretary of transportation for
| technology policy under President Bill Clinton and a former
| consultant to Boeing, described the challenge facing the
| investigators as a "megascale engineering puzzle".
| ...
<http://www.iol.co.za/business/companies/cause-of-boeing-fire-eludes-team-1.1459385>

Redesign, recertify, redeploy.

--bks

[Daryl]

On 1/27/2013 3:37 PM, wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:25:16 -0600, Marvin the Martian
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:13:24 -0500, clare wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:29:30 -0600, Marvin the Martian
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:56:43 -0500, clare wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:42:01 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get
>>>>>>> it...
>>>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> Now from a business point of view however ...
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an
>>>>>>> event that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration,
>>>>>>> clearly this is no emergency.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do with how
>>>>>> potential passengers should act or react.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap. That's ALL it
>>>>>> takes to destroy it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are convinced passengers are convinced. There have been no deaths,
>>>>> no injuries, and only limitted damage to this point. A minor tweek
>>>>> will likely solve the battery problem. It appears to be a problem with
>>>>> the APU not knowing how to handle Lithium batteries, as the problem
>>>>> occurs when on the ground with the APU running the system.
>>>>
>>>> I love it when people who have no ****ing idea what's going on, make
>>>> **** up like "a minor tweek will fix it".
>>> When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a
>>> relatively minor tweek.
>>
>> Right. The APU is complex, ergo the solution will be simple.
>>
>> Or maybe you're trying to say, the APU is simple, so the solution will be
>> simple.
>>
>> Either way, you're ignoring the complexity of the entire electrical
>> system. Which kinda makes you claims absurd meaningless and laughable
>> prattle.
>>
>> You sound good, tho'. Keep pontificating! Maybe you'll fool someone into
>> thinking you know something.
>>
>> So, how many days has it been? Where is that simple tweek!?
>>
>> LOL!
> Just because the tweek will be minor does not mean figuring it out
> will be simple. And getting it signed off will not be a simple matter
> either - we ARE dealing with certified aircraft.
> I suspect there will be some reprogramming of the charging system and
> a possible switch to Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiPo ) cells from the LCo
> (Lithium Cobalt Oxide) batteries that caused a lot of consternation in
> portable devices, like laptops, a few years ago. I cannot understand
> why LCo batteries were spec'ed instead of LIPo or LNMC cells. The
> relatively minor power density advantage is hard to balance against
> the known issues with LCO cells. The LCO cells CAN be safely used
> with proper controls - but the risk is still there.
>

Fairly easy answer. The LCO has the highest power density of all
the Lithium batteries. And it can sustain the highest discharge
rate. Unfortunately, it also has the narrowest range of
operating temperatures and creates the nastiest fire when it ignites.

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Mr.B1ack[_3_]]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:

> On Jan 27, 2:19Â*am, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
>> > On Jan 25, 9:54Â*pm, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>> >> Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like
>> >> anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far these issues
>> >> haven't caused any fatalities.
>>
>> > But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly
>> > fatalities on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at
>> > Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport. Â*Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.
>>
>> Â* Â*Irrevelant.
>>
>> Â* Â*It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being dangerous.
>
> And the A320 didn't?
>
>> That's all-important.
>>
>> That's all that counts.
>>
>>The 787 is *done*.
>
> I *way* doubt that.


Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.

And I think you'll find a lot of other
people with the same sentiment.

Boeing should have spent another six months
to a year debugging the thing ... but they
were already behind schedule and afraid to
wait any longer. Bad move. Understandable
from the business POV, but still bad. Now
it'll be even worse from the business POV.

The engineers oughtta decide when a big plane
is "ready" ... not the pointy-haired executives.
If one of these things catches fire and nosedives
into a city, thousands could die.

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 2:19Â am, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
> >> > On Jan 25, 9:54Â pm, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
> >> >> Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like
> >> >> anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far these issues
> >> >> haven't caused any fatalities.
> >>
> >> > But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly
> >> > fatalities on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at
> >> > Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport. Â Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.
> >>
> >> Â Â Irrevelant.
> >>
> >> Â Â It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being dangerous.
> >
> > And the A320 didn't?
> >
> >> That's all-important.
> >>
> >> That's all that counts.
> >>
> >>The 787 is *done*.
> >
> > I *way* doubt that.
>
> Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.


You're on the banned list?

[Delvin Benet]

On 1/28/2013 5:08 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
>
>> On Jan 27, 2:19 am, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
>>>> On Jan 25, 9:54 pm, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>>>>> Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like
>>>>> anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far these issues
>>>>> haven't caused any fatalities.
>>>
>>>> But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly
>>>> fatalities on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at
>>>> Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport. Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.
>>>
>>> Irrevelant.
>>>
>>> It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being dangerous.
>>
>> And the A320 didn't?
>>
>>> That's all-important.
>>>
>>> That's all that counts.
>>>
>>> The 787 is *done*.
>>
>> I *way* doubt that.
>
>
> Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.

I don't fly much any more - it's a miserable experience since 9/11 no
matter what the plane is - but I wouldn't have flown on the 787 until it
had been in service for a year or so.

This battery problem is worse than the average sort of aeronautical
hiccup - more like a serious case of indigestion - but they'll overcome it.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
> ...
>This battery problem is worse than the average sort of aeronautical
>hiccup - more like a serious case of indigestion - but they'll overcome it.

When?
| ...
| "Stopping production is not going to happen," said Carter
| Leake, an aerospace analyst with BB&T Capital Markets. A
| halt in production or even a slow down would risk crucial
| suppliers going out of business. "They need to keep the
| lines running to support the supply chain. They can't do
| that to suppliers that barely survived the three year delay
| in producing the first plane."
| ...
<http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/25/news/companies/boeing-dreamliner-production/index.html>

--bks

[Bug Dout]

Too_Many_Tools > writes:

> The batteries are obviously being overcharged..a system problem.
Not necessarily. They may simply be too big to properly handle modest
fluctuations in heat even under proper charge. That's an even bigger
problem.
--
Who depends on another man's table often dines late.
--John Ray

[Mr.B1ack[_3_]]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:16:31 -0800, Delvin Benet wrote:

> On 1/28/2013 5:08 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 27, 2:19 am, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 25, 9:54 pm, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>>>>>> Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like
>>>>>> anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far these issues
>>>>>> haven't caused any fatalities.
>>>>
>>>>> But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly
>>>>> fatalities on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at
>>>>> Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport. Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.
>>>>
>>>> Irrevelant.
>>>>
>>>> It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being dangerous.
>>>
>>> And the A320 didn't?
>>>
>>>> That's all-important.
>>>>
>>>> That's all that counts.
>>>>
>>>> The 787 is *done*.
>>>
>>> I *way* doubt that.
>>
>>
>> Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.
>
> I don't fly much any more - it's a miserable experience since 9/11 no
> matter what the plane is - but I wouldn't have flown on the 787 until it
> had been in service for a year or so.
>
> This battery problem is worse than the average sort of aeronautical
> hiccup - more like a serious case of indigestion - but they'll overcome
> it.

They'll overcome it - technically - but will that
help in terms of public *perception* ? If the public
thinks it's a deathtrap then why would airlines buy
any ? Switch to Airbus instead.

Remember Value-Jet ? Remember the flaming CRASH ?
The *name* 'Value-Jet' became inviable - and they
had to change it to "Jet-Blue".

I don't think Boeing can try that trick.

Recall the planes, spend a year REALLY debugging
them ... then re-issue them as the '797' instead.
Tweak the cosmetics a bit too ... then it will
*seem* like a new plane and public paranoia will
be avoided. Yea, it'll be 99.5 percent the 787,
but *perception* is what's gonna count.

BTW ... it wasn't actually the batteries. Something
in the charge/charge-regulatation electronics. If
someone else made it, Boeing can blame 'em. If not
then it's a black mark against Boeing.

Given the volume of problems in such a short time,
hey, didn't Boeing TEST the damned planes ? Short
answer - no ... not enough. They were behind in
delivery and decided to test 'em with live human
guinea-pigs.

Ya didn't see the CEO or board members flying on
the things, did ya ? :-)

[Bug Dout]

"Mr.B1ack" > writes:

> Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.
>
> And I think you'll find a lot of other
> people with the same sentiment.

"a lot", that would be 100 people, 100 times more people than you, yes,
that's a lot! The fact people buy tickets based on the cheapest online
price and ignore all the baggage fees, etc. shows that people simply do
not know or care what model of airplane they fly.

I think you're a troll for Airbus. Or, one of those wacky right-wing
conspiracy kooks.

[.metalworking?? .unions??]
--
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
-- Mark Twain

[Keith W[_4_]]

Mr.B1ack wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:16:31 -0800, Delvin Benet wrote:
>
>> On 1/28/2013 5:08 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 27, 2:19 am, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 25, 9:54 pm, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>>>>>>> Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like
>>>>>>> anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far these
>>>>>>> issues haven't caused any fatalities.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly
>>>>>> fatalities on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at
>>>>>> Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport. Airbus's A380 had terrible delays,
>>>>>> too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrevelant.
>>>>>
>>>>> It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being dangerous.
>>>>
>>>> And the A320 didn't?
>>>>
>>>>> That's all-important.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's all that counts.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 787 is *done*.
>>>>
>>>> I *way* doubt that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.
>>
>> I don't fly much any more - it's a miserable experience since 9/11 no
>> matter what the plane is - but I wouldn't have flown on the 787
>> until it had been in service for a year or so.
>>
>> This battery problem is worse than the average sort of aeronautical
>> hiccup - more like a serious case of indigestion - but they'll
>> overcome it.
>
> They'll overcome it - technically - but will that
> help in terms of public *perception* ? If the public
> thinks it's a deathtrap then why would airlines buy
> any ? Switch to Airbus instead.
>
> Remember Value-Jet ? Remember the flaming CRASH ?
> The *name* 'Value-Jet' became inviable - and they
> had to change it to "Jet-Blue".
>
> I don't think Boeing can try that trick.
>

erm Valujet did not change to JetBlue thats a quite
different airline

> Recall the planes, spend a year REALLY debugging
> them ... then re-issue them as the '797' instead.
> Tweak the cosmetics a bit too ... then it will
> *seem* like a new plane and public paranoia will
> be avoided. Yea, it'll be 99.5 percent the 787,
> but *perception* is what's gonna count.
>

Says the man who perceived Jetblue as the reincarnation of Valujet.

The reality is that MANY new aircraft have suffered minor
engineering issues that caused them to be grounded for
a while including the new Airbus 380


Keith

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| What, then, is wrong with the Dreamliner?
|
| "I think people had their fingers crossed that it was a
| battery fault," Keith Hayward, head of research at the
| Royal Aeronautical Society, told BBC. "It looks more
| systemic and serious to me. I suspect it could be difficult
| to identify the cause."
| ...
<http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0128/Boeing-787-battery-passes-initial-probe.-What-s-wrong-with-the-Dreamliner>

--bks

[Mr.B1ack[_3_]]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:57:11 +0000, Keith W wrote:

> Mr.B1ack wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:16:31 -0800, Delvin Benet wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/28/2013 5:08 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 27, 2:19 am, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 25, 9:54 pm, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like
>>>>>>>> anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far these issues
>>>>>>>> haven't caused any fatalities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly
>>>>>>> fatalities on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at
>>>>>>> Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport. Airbus's A380 had terrible delays,
>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrevelant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being dangerous.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the A320 didn't?
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's all-important.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's all that counts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 787 is *done*.
>>>>>
>>>>> I *way* doubt that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.
>>>
>>> I don't fly much any more - it's a miserable experience since 9/11 no
>>> matter what the plane is - but I wouldn't have flown on the 787 until
>>> it had been in service for a year or so.
>>>
>>> This battery problem is worse than the average sort of aeronautical
>>> hiccup - more like a serious case of indigestion - but they'll
>>> overcome it.
>>
>> They'll overcome it - technically - but will that help in terms of
>> public *perception* ? If the public thinks it's a deathtrap then why
>> would airlines buy any ? Switch to Airbus instead.
>>
>> Remember Value-Jet ? Remember the flaming CRASH ? The *name*
>> 'Value-Jet' became inviable - and they had to change it to
>> "Jet-Blue".
>>
>> I don't think Boeing can try that trick.
>>
>>
> erm Valujet did not change to JetBlue thats a quite different airline


You're right ... "ValueJet" became "AirTran" to
escape its stigma.


>> Recall the planes, spend a year REALLY debugging them ... then
>> re-issue them as the '797' instead. Tweak the cosmetics a bit too ...
>> then it will *seem* like a new plane and public paranoia will be
>> avoided. Yea, it'll be 99.5 percent the 787, but *perception* is
>> what's gonna count.
>>
>>
> Says the man who perceived Jetblue as the reincarnation of Valujet.

Pick another nit.

> The reality is that MANY new aircraft have suffered minor engineering
> issues that caused them to be grounded for a while including the new
> Airbus 380

I'll say it ONCE more ... 'reality' doesn't MATTER.
Public PERCEPTION matters. That perception is immune
to reason, to evidence, to statistics. It's a emotion
thing.

And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
deathtrap.

[Mr.B1ack[_3_]]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:47:49 +0000, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:

> |
> | What, then, is wrong with the Dreamliner? |
> | "I think people had their fingers crossed that it was a | battery
> fault," Keith Hayward, head of research at the | Royal Aeronautical
> Society, told BBC. "It looks more | systemic and serious to me. I
> suspect it could be difficult | to identify the cause."
> | ...
> <http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0128/
Boeing-787-battery-passes-initial-probe.-What-s-wrong-with-the-Dreamliner>
>
> --bks


NOT a battery fault ... something in the circuitry
that monitors and controls the charge state. Could
be rather minor - and under-rated low-ohm resistor,
a cheapo Chinese cap or inductor ... or it could be
further up, in the software.

In the first case it means that EVERYTHING that uses
similar components, and/or was designed by the same
engineers, has to be taken apart and torture-tested.
In the second case ... COULD be a local firmware
glitch - assuming they're using "smart" modules -
or it COULD be in the system software. The former
is less of a big deal - such control programs tend
to be relatively short. If the system software
is nanny to this and more components however ....

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| Short of a breakthrough in the investigation into the two
| battery fires, this Wednesday will mark the start of the
| third week Boeing's 787s will have been grounded. Now,
| hundreds of engineers, many of whom worked to get the jet
| certified to begin with, are back at work trying to figure
| out where Boeing goes from here.
|
| They're working in teams, and multiple sources with
| knowledge of the company say Boeing's strategy is as
| follows.
|
| 1. Find the root cause of the battery incidents. Engineers
| are working with the National Transportation Safety Board
| and the Federal Aviation Administration to get to the
| bottom of a battery fire in Boston and a smoking battery
| aboard a second jet in Japan.
| 2. Get airborne. How to prepare for a range of fixes to
| comply as soon as possible with the FAA's airworthiness
| directive that grounded the jets on January 16.
| 3. Scenario planning. What if the use of lithium ion
| batteries was banned altogether, or regulators made another
| major move that would force Boeing to redesign the
| electrical architecture of the 787.
| ...
<http://www.king5.com/news/local/What-does-Boeing-need-to-do-to-get-787s-flying-188770201.html>

--bks

[Mr.B1ack[_3_]]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:49:55 -0800, Bug Dout wrote:

> "Mr.B1ack" > writes:
>
>> Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.
>>
>> And I think you'll find a lot of other people with the same
>> sentiment.
>
> "a lot", that would be 100 people, 100 times more people than you, yes,
> that's a lot! The fact people buy tickets based on the cheapest online
> price and ignore all the baggage fees, etc. shows that people simply do
> not know or care what model of airplane they fly.

You sound like a Boeing subcontractor ...

> I think you're a troll for Airbus. Or, one of those wacky right-wing
> conspiracy kooks.

I don't care for the AirBus safety record either.

This is one of those cases where capitalism works
against us. The competitors tend to rush these very
complex machines out the door, trying to stay ahead
of each other. A modern airliner is at least as
complex as a space shuttle ... and they always had
problems with those (usually with tri/quad redundancy
to save their asses).

IMHO, especially given the disaster possibilities,
airliner manufacturers should NOT be using the
public as their beta testers to "work out the
kinks". The planes should be READY before the
first passenger buys a ticket. There needs to
be more regs and govt oversight.

(does that sound ultraright-wing ? :-)

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
, Mr.B1ack says...
>
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:47:49 +0000, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>
> > |
> > | What, then, is wrong with the Dreamliner? |
> > | "I think people had their fingers crossed that it was a | battery
> > fault," Keith Hayward, head of research at the | Royal Aeronautical
> > Society, told BBC. "It looks more | systemic and serious to me. I
> > suspect it could be difficult | to identify the cause."
> > | ...
> > <http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0128/
> Boeing-787-battery-passes-initial-probe.-What-s-wrong-with-the-Dreamliner>
> >
> > --bks
>
>
> NOT a battery fault ... something in the circuitry
> that monitors and controls the charge state. Could
> be rather minor - and under-rated low-ohm resistor,
> a cheapo Chinese cap or inductor ... or it could be
> further up, in the software.
>
> In the first case it means that EVERYTHING that uses
> similar components, and/or was designed by the same
> engineers, has to be taken apart and torture-tested.
> In the second case ... COULD be a local firmware
> glitch - assuming they're using "smart" modules -
> or it COULD be in the system software. The former
> is less of a big deal - such control programs tend
> to be relatively short. If the system software
> is nanny to this and more components however ....

Posted again...

http://www.luxresearchinc.com/news-and-events/press-releases/148.html

--
Duncan.

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>
> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
> perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
> deathtrap.


Who has died aboard a 787?

[Delvin Benet]

On 1/28/2013 7:03 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>>
>> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
>> perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
>> deathtrap.
>
>
> Who has died aboard a 787?

No one.

How many people are afraid they might have died in one if they hadn't
been ordered out of service?

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:00:33 +1300, Dave Doe > wrote:

>In article >,
, Mr.B1ack says...
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:47:49 +0000, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>>
>> > |
>> > | What, then, is wrong with the Dreamliner? |
>> > | "I think people had their fingers crossed that it was a | battery
>> > fault," Keith Hayward, head of research at the | Royal Aeronautical
>> > Society, told BBC. "It looks more | systemic and serious to me. I
>> > suspect it could be difficult | to identify the cause."
>> > | ...
>> > <http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0128/
>> Boeing-787-battery-passes-initial-probe.-What-s-wrong-with-the-Dreamliner>
>> >
>> > --bks
>>
>>
>> NOT a battery fault ... something in the circuitry
>> that monitors and controls the charge state. Could
>> be rather minor - and under-rated low-ohm resistor,
>> a cheapo Chinese cap or inductor ... or it could be
>> further up, in the software.
>>
>> In the first case it means that EVERYTHING that uses
>> similar components, and/or was designed by the same
>> engineers, has to be taken apart and torture-tested.
>> In the second case ... COULD be a local firmware
>> glitch - assuming they're using "smart" modules -
>> or it COULD be in the system software. The former
>> is less of a big deal - such control programs tend
>> to be relatively short. If the system software
>> is nanny to this and more components however ....
>
>Posted again...
>
>http://www.luxresearchinc.com/news-and-events/press-releases/148.html
So far EVERYTHING, including the opinions of the so-called experts
is just speculation. The smoking gun has not been found yet.

MY opinion is still that it will be found to be a relatively simple
tweek - but they MAY end up switching from Lithium Cobalt Oxide to a
different lithium chemistry as a precaution and to re-assure the
public that a mistreated battery won't cause a fire in flight.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:28:36 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:

>On 1/28/2013 7:03 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>>>
>>> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
>>> perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
>>> deathtrap.
>>
>>
>> Who has died aboard a 787?
>
>No one.
>
>How many people are afraid they might have died in one if they hadn't
>been ordered out of service?


More people die on american roads in one year than have died in
aircraft accidents in 50 years.
Every year 47 Americans die on the road for every one who dies in the
air or coming out of it. Yet people get into cars and busses every
day.

[Delvin Benet]

On 1/28/2013 8:39 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:28:36 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>
>> On 1/28/2013 7:03 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
>>>> perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
>>>> deathtrap.
>>>
>>>
>>> Who has died aboard a 787?
>>
>> No one.
>>
>> How many people are afraid they might have died in one if they hadn't
>> been ordered out of service?
>
>
> More people die on american roads in one year than have died in
> aircraft accidents in 50 years.
> Every year 47 Americans die on the road for every one who dies in the
> air or coming out of it. Yet people get into cars and busses every
> day.

Sure, but considering only safety, would you rather drive a Nissan 350Z
with 143 driver fatalities per million registered vehicle years, or a
BMW 7 series with only 11 fatalities per million?
http://www.statisticbrain.com/driver-fatality-stats-by-auto-make/

The point is, within any *given* mode of transportation, people don't
want to use dangerous vehicles if they have a choice, /ceteris paribus/.
If the 787 is dangerous and a 777 isn't, people will want to fly on
the 777.

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
>> perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
>> deathtrap.

> Who has died aboard a 787?

Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to stall
and fall out of the sky without informing its crew?
jsw

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
> >> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
> >> perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
> >> deathtrap.
>
> > Who has died aboard a 787?
>
> Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to stall
> and fall out of the sky without informing its crew?
> jsw


Not that I know of. The newest plane I've flown on was a 727. The
other was a DC10. I flew to Alaska & back from Ohio in the '70s and
have never needed to go anywhere by plane since.

[Max Boot]

On 1/29/2013 7:04 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>
>> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>>
>>> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>>>> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
>>>> perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
>>>> deathtrap.
>>
>>> Who has died aboard a 787?
>>
>> Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to stall
>> and fall out of the sky without informing its crew?
>> jsw
>
>
> Not that I know of. The newest plane I've flown on was a 727. The
> other was a DC10. I flew to Alaska & back from Ohio in the '70s and
> have never needed to go anywhere by plane since.

You are the classic example of why cosmopolitan Europeans and Asians
mock Americans: a bumpkin, a rube, someone who thinks everything in the
world worth seeing and knowing is within a two hour mule ride from your
shack.

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Max Boot" > wrote in message
.. .
> On 1/29/2013 7:04 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>>
>>> Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to
>>> stall
>>> and fall out of the sky without informing its crew?
>>> jsw
>>
>
> You are the classic example of why cosmopolitan Europeans and Asians
> mock Americans: a bumpkin, a rube, someone who thinks everything in
> the world worth seeing and knowing is within a two hour mule ride
> from your shack.

http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/rapport.final.en.php
CVR 2h 11m 43.0
"qu'est-ce qui se passe ? je ne sais pas je sais pas ce qui se passe"
"on a tout perdu le contrôle de l'avion on comprend rien on a tout
tenté"

It doesn't take much to bring out the angry frustrated child in you.

[Mr.B1ack[_3_]]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:58:11 -0800, Delvin Benet wrote:

> On 1/28/2013 8:39 PM, wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:28:36 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/28/2013 7:03 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the perception of
>>>>> the 787 becoming that of a flaming deathtrap.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who has died aboard a 787?
>>>
>>> No one.
>>>
>>> How many people are afraid they might have died in one if they hadn't
>>> been ordered out of service?
>>
>>
>> More people die on american roads in one year than have died in
>> aircraft accidents in 50 years.
>> Every year 47 Americans die on the road for every one who dies in the
>> air or coming out of it. Yet people get into cars and busses every day.
>
> Sure, but considering only safety, would you rather drive a Nissan 350Z
> with 143 driver fatalities per million registered vehicle years, or a
> BMW 7 series with only 11 fatalities per million?
> http://www.statisticbrain.com/driver-fatality-stats-by-auto-make/

Is the problem the CAR ... or the kind of people
who buy it and how they DRIVE it ? :-)

I can put a conservative old fart on a kick-ass
Ninja rice-rocket and he can ride it a million
miles without so much as a ticket or dent. Hand
the same bike to some testosterone-overdosed
punk and he'd be lucky to make it to the corner
store without leaving a deep imprint in the
side of an SUV.

[Mr.B1ack[_3_]]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:13:58 -0800, Max Boot wrote:

> On 1/29/2013 7:04 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>>
>>> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>>
>>>> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>>>>> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the perception of
>>>>> the 787 becoming that of a flaming deathtrap.
>>>
>>>> Who has died aboard a 787?
>>>
>>> Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to stall
>>> and fall out of the sky without informing its crew? jsw
>>
>>
>> Not that I know of. The newest plane I've flown on was a 727. The
>> other was a DC10. I flew to Alaska & back from Ohio in the '70s and
>> have never needed to go anywhere by plane since.
>
> You are the classic example of why cosmopolitan Europeans and Asians
> mock Americans: a bumpkin, a rube, someone who thinks everything in the
> world worth seeing and knowing is within a two hour mule ride from your
> shack.

Though, oddly, those cosmopolitan euros will flock
over on their tourist bus to take a million photos
of his mule and shack ... "Rustic Americana", very
artsy-fartsy dontchaknow :-)

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:13:58 -0800, Max Boot wrote:
>
> > On 1/29/2013 7:04 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >>
> >> Jim Wilkins wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in message
> >>> m...
> >>>>
> >>>> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
> >>>>> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the perception of
> >>>>> the 787 becoming that of a flaming deathtrap.
> >>>
> >>>> Who has died aboard a 787?
> >>>
> >>> Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to stall
> >>> and fall out of the sky without informing its crew? jsw
> >>
> >>
> >> Not that I know of. The newest plane I've flown on was a 727. The
> >> other was a DC10. I flew to Alaska & back from Ohio in the '70s and
> >> have never needed to go anywhere by plane since.
> >
> > You are the classic example of why cosmopolitan Europeans and Asians
> > mock Americans: a bumpkin, a rube, someone who thinks everything in the
> > world worth seeing and knowing is within a two hour mule ride from your
> > shack.
>
> Though, oddly, those cosmopolitan euros will flock
> over on their tourist bus to take a million photos
> of his mule and shack ... "Rustic Americana", very
> artsy-fartsy dontchaknow :-)


I haven't seen a mule since the '60s. I've seen plenty of European
tourrists who could give a mule a lessons on how to be stubborn. Orlando
was crawling with them when I worked there as an engineer.

As far as Max, how long has that size 17 US made cowboy boot been up
your sorry ass?

[Stormin Mormon]

I suspect that Michael Terrell has fewer sexual
transmitted diseases, regrets, abortions, and
mystery illness than the typical cosmo European.

I know I sure have fewer regrets than you
cosmo folks. And, I like it that way. Now, I've
got to go shovel up after my mule.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Max Boot" > wrote in message
>
> You are the classic example of why
> cosmopolitan Europeans and Asians
> mock Americans: a bumpkin, a rube,
> someone who thinks everything in
> the world worth seeing and knowing
> is within a two hour mule ride
> from your shack.

[Stormin Mormon]

I'm such a person. I drive under the speed limit, most of
the time, and prefer to arrive safely. If I had a kick ass
Ninja rice burning crotch rocket, I'd probably not get it
past about 35 MPH on the Thruway.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Mr.B1ack" > wrote in message
m...

>
> Sure, but considering only safety, would you rather drive a Nissan 350Z
> with 143 driver fatalities per million registered vehicle years, or a
> BMW 7 series with only 11 fatalities per million?
> http://www.statisticbrain.com/driver-fatality-stats-by-auto-make/

Is the problem the CAR ... or the kind of people
who buy it and how they DRIVE it ? :-)

I can put a conservative old fart on a kick-ass
Ninja rice-rocket and he can ride it a million
miles without so much as a ticket or dent. Hand
the same bike to some testosterone-overdosed
punk and he'd be lucky to make it to the corner
store without leaving a deep imprint in the
side of an SUV.

[Stormin Mormon]

He could have his ass on the cover of Cosmo?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Mr.B1ack" > wrote in message
m...

> You are the classic example of why cosmopolitan Europeans and Asians
> mock Americans: a bumpkin, a rube, someone who thinks everything in the
> world worth seeing and knowing is within a two hour mule ride from your
> shack.

Though, oddly, those cosmopolitan euros will flock
over on their tourist bus to take a million photos
of his mule and shack ... "Rustic Americana", very
artsy-fartsy dontchaknow :-)

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Max Boot" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> You are the classic example of why cosmopolitan Europeans and Asians
> mock Americans: a bumpkin, a rube, someone who thinks everything in
> the world worth seeing and knowing is within a two hour mule ride
> from your shack.
>

The most egregious example I've heard of that ****ant cultural
snobbery was from Indian expats who couldn't understand how their
sophisticated ancient culture had been overtaken by Northern Europeans
who lived in wattle and daub (mud) huts until very recently, by their
time frame.

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Stormin Mormon" > wrote in message
...
>
> I know I sure have fewer regrets than you
> cosmo folks. And, I like it that way. Now, I've
> got to go shovel up after my mule.
>
> Christopher A. Young

Any illusion of culture Alistair Cooke may have given us went down the
loo when we saw Benny Hill and Mr. Bean.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:58:11 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:

>On 1/28/2013 8:39 PM, wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:28:36 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/28/2013 7:03 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
>>>>> perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
>>>>> deathtrap.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who has died aboard a 787?
>>>
>>> No one.
>>>
>>> How many people are afraid they might have died in one if they hadn't
>>> been ordered out of service?
>>
>>
>> More people die on american roads in one year than have died in
>> aircraft accidents in 50 years.
>> Every year 47 Americans die on the road for every one who dies in the
>> air or coming out of it. Yet people get into cars and busses every
>> day.
>
>Sure, but considering only safety, would you rather drive a Nissan 350Z
>with 143 driver fatalities per million registered vehicle years, or a
>BMW 7 series with only 11 fatalities per million?
>http://www.statisticbrain.com/driver-fatality-stats-by-auto-make/
>
>The point is, within any *given* mode of transportation, people don't
>want to use dangerous vehicles if they have a choice, /ceteris paribus/.
> If the 787 is dangerous and a 777 isn't, people will want to fly on
>the 777.
>
>
The most dangerous part on a 350Z is generally the nut holding the
wheel.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:50:31 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
> wrote:

>"Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>>> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
>>> perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
>>> deathtrap.
>
>> Who has died aboard a 787?
>
>Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to stall
>and fall out of the sky without informing its crew?
>jsw
>
Like the nut holding the wheel of the 350z, the pilots of that plane
were awfully close to brain dead to allow that to happen. They were
just playing a video game - NOT FLYING THE PLANE. All the warnings
were there except for the indicators on the instrument panel.

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:50:31 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in message
m...
>>>
>>> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>>>> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
>>>> perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
>>>> deathtrap.
>>
>>> Who has died aboard a 787?
>>
>>Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to stall
>>and fall out of the sky without informing its crew?
>>jsw
>>
> Like the nut holding the wheel of the 350z, the pilots of that plane
> were awfully close to brain dead to allow that to happen. They were
> just playing a video game - NOT FLYING THE PLANE. All the warnings
> were there except for the indicators on the instrument panel.

All the warnings were NOT there, and the ones they had were
misleading. The stall indicator shut off below a minimum airspeed and
came on when they correctly put the nose down and gained speed. The
stalled plane remained fairly level and controllable in pitch as it
fell at a very low forward airspeed, a condition the FCS apparently
didn't understand. Roll control was harder and kept them occupied.
They advanced the throttles to TakeOff/Go-Around power and kept the
nose slightly high, which SHOULD have been the proper procedure if
they'd had more airspeed. At night in a storm they were purely on IFR,
with no visual cues and airspeed indicators that had been and could
still be(?) reading low only because they had iced up.

[Max Boot]

On 1/29/2013 8:50 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Max Boot" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> You are the classic example of why cosmopolitan Europeans and Asians
>> mock Americans: a bumpkin, a rube, someone who thinks everything in
>> the world worth seeing and knowing is within a two hour mule ride
>> from your shack.
>>
>
> The most egregious example I've heard of that ****ant cultural
> snobbery was from Indian expats who couldn't understand how their
> sophisticated ancient culture had been overtaken by Northern Europeans
> who lived in wattle and daub (mud) huts until very recently, by their
> time frame.

What cultural snobbery are you ****ing and moaning about? Are you
saying that you resent people who are well traveled and knowledgeable
about other parts of the world telling you what a benighted bumpkin you
are? The average American *is* a benighted bumpkin. It's the height of
the most despicable and dangerous arrogance that the US presumes to
dictate to the rest of the world how things ought to be, and the vast
majority of Americans have no ****ing clue about how any other part of
the world actually is. It's exactly that kind of ignorance mixed with
arrogance that produced the two monumentally disastrous wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

[Max Boot]

On 1/29/2013 7:42 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Max Boot" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> On 1/29/2013 7:04 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to
>>>> stall
>>>> and fall out of the sky without informing its crew?
>>>> jsw
>>>
>>
>> You are the classic example of why cosmopolitan Europeans and Asians
>> mock Americans: a bumpkin, a rube, someone who thinks everything in
>> the world worth seeing and knowing is within a two hour mule ride
>> from your shack.
>
> http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/rapport.final.en.php
> CVR 2h 11m 43.0
> "qu'est-ce qui se passe ? je ne sais pas je sais pas ce qui se passe"
> "on a tout perdu le contrôle de l'avion on comprend rien on a tout
> tenté"
>
> It doesn't take much to bring out the angry frustrated child in you.

Struck a nerve, I see. I'm guessing you've never traveled. In fact,
it's all but a certainty.

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Max Boot" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/29/2013 8:50 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

So Europeans are fully justified in crucifying Boeing over a battery
that harmed no one, but Americans MUST NOT embarrassingly mention the
fatal crash of an Airbus that was in perfect working condition when it
smashed into the ocean?

Such fragile egos!

[Stormin Mormon]

I learned all my English culture and manners from
Monty Python's Flying Circus.

My horse likes to watch Mr. Rogers' Neigh......
borhood.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...

Any illusion of culture Alistair Cooke may
have given us went down the
loo when we saw Benny Hill and Mr. Bean.

[Max Boot]

On 1/29/2013 11:40 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Max Boot" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 1/29/2013 8:50 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> So Europeans are fully justified in crucifying Boeing over a battery
> that harmed no one, but Americans MUST NOT embarrassingly mention the
> fatal crash of an Airbus that was in perfect working condition when it
> smashed into the ocean?
>
> Such fragile egos!

Okay, so you're not just an untraveled rube and bumpkin, you're also
hyper-nationalistic and sensitive about being an untraveled rube.

I haven't seen anything to suggest Europeans are "crucifying" [sic]
Boeing over the battery problem. You seem to be trying to downplay it.
It's a serious problem, and it has led to the *American* FAA grounding
all the planes. While ice in the pitot tubes is suspected of producing
the faulty airspeed readings, the main cause of the crash of the Air
France A330 was pilot error. They might conceivably have safely flown
the plane either back to Brazil or on to France. By contrast, if a
battery fire in a 787 ever spread, the plane most likely would crash.

The battery problem is serious and needs to be corrected, and not
pooh-poohed by insanely nationalistic Americans who stupidly read too
much into a Boeing-Airbus competition. Also...Americans need to get out
of their general provincialism.

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Max Boot" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/29/2013 7:42 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> Struck a nerve, I see. I'm guessing you've never traveled. In
> fact, it's all but a certainty.

Don't hire yourself out as a detective.

I wore out a set of Reifen travelling around Europe as a field sevice
repairman for two years.

[Mr.B1ack[_3_]]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:22:21 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:13:58 -0800, Max Boot wrote:
>>
>> > On 1/29/2013 7:04 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in message
>> >>> m...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>> >>>>> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the perception
>> >>>>> of the 787 becoming that of a flaming deathtrap.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Who has died aboard a 787?
>> >>>
>> >>> Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to stall
>> >>> and fall out of the sky without informing its crew? jsw
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Not that I know of. The newest plane I've flown on was a 727.
>> >> The
>> >> other was a DC10. I flew to Alaska & back from Ohio in the '70s and
>> >> have never needed to go anywhere by plane since.
>> >
>> > You are the classic example of why cosmopolitan Europeans and Asians
>> > mock Americans: a bumpkin, a rube, someone who thinks everything in
>> > the world worth seeing and knowing is within a two hour mule ride
>> > from your shack.
>>
>> Though, oddly, those cosmopolitan euros will flock over on their
>> tourist bus to take a million photos of his mule and shack ...
>> "Rustic Americana", very artsy-fartsy dontchaknow.


> I haven't seen a mule since the '60s.

They've built a better one :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KYnbwXTMXA


> I've seen plenty of European
> tourrists who could give a mule a lessons on how to be stubborn. Orlando
> was crawling with them when I worked there as an engineer.


Oh gawd ... Orlando ..... the holy hajj to The Rat ......


> As far as Max, how long has that size 17 US made cowboy boot been up
> your sorry ass?


I thought hillbillies went barefoot ... makes it
easier to sneak up on their sisters :-)

[Transition Zone]

On Jan 29, 3:02*pm, Max Boot > wrote:
> On 1/29/2013 11:40 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> > "Max Boot" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 1/29/2013 8:50 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> > So Europeans are fully justified in crucifying Boeing over a battery
> > that harmed no one, but Americans MUST NOT embarrassingly mention the
> > fatal crash of an Airbus that was in perfect working condition when it
> > smashed into the ocean?
>
> > Such fragile egos!
>
> Okay, so you're not just an untraveled rube and bumpkin, you're also
> hyper-nationalistic and sensitive about being an untraveled rube.
>
>I haven't seen anything to suggest Europeans are "crucifying" [sic]
> Boeing over the battery problem. *You seem to be trying to downplay it..
> *It's a serious problem, and it has led to the *American* FAA
grounding
> all the planes. *While ice in the pitot tubes is suspected of producing
>the faulty airspeed readings, the main cause of the crash of the Air
> France A330 was pilot error.

That was the same ruling for the A310 Hapag-Lloyd Flight 3378 crash in
Vienna (back on July 12, 2000). Its like it just ran out of fuel and
fell out of the sky or something.

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Transition Zone" > wrote in message
news:c67b5f86-745c-46fc-9534-
>That was the same ruling for theA310 Hapag-Lloyd Flight 3378 crash in
>Vienna (back on July 12, 2000). Its like it just ran out of fuel and
>fell out of the sky or something.

The wiki says the landing gear wouldn't fully retract and the FMS
miscalculated their remaining range. They aborted to Vienna and had to
glide the last 20km, hitting 500m short.

[Max Boot]

On 1/29/2013 7:46 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:13:58 -0800, Max Boot wrote:
>
>> On 1/29/2013 7:04 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in message
>>>> m...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>>>>>> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the perception of
>>>>>> the 787 becoming that of a flaming deathtrap.
>>>>
>>>>> Who has died aboard a 787?
>>>>
>>>> Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to stall
>>>> and fall out of the sky without informing its crew? jsw
>>>
>>>
>>> Not that I know of. The newest plane I've flown on was a 727. The
>>> other was a DC10. I flew to Alaska & back from Ohio in the '70s and
>>> have never needed to go anywhere by plane since.
>>
>> You are the classic example of why cosmopolitan Europeans and Asians
>> mock Americans: a bumpkin, a rube, someone who thinks everything in the
>> world worth seeing and knowing is within a two hour mule ride from your
>> shack.
>
> Though, oddly, those cosmopolitan euros will flock
> over on their tourist bus to take a million photos
> of his mule and shack ... "Rustic Americana", very
> artsy-fartsy dontchaknow :-)


Yes, of course. Europeans are interested in learning how primitives live.

[Max Boot]

On 1/29/2013 1:13 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
> On Jan 29, 3:02 pm, Max Boot > wrote:
>> On 1/29/2013 11:40 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>
>>> "Max Boot" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 1/29/2013 8:50 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>
>>> So Europeans are fully justified in crucifying Boeing over a battery
>>> that harmed no one, but Americans MUST NOT embarrassingly mention the
>>> fatal crash of an Airbus that was in perfect working condition when it
>>> smashed into the ocean?
>>
>>> Such fragile egos!
>>
>> Okay, so you're not just an untraveled rube and bumpkin, you're also
>> hyper-nationalistic and sensitive about being an untraveled rube.
>>
> >I haven't seen anything to suggest Europeans are "crucifying" [sic]
>> Boeing over the battery problem. You seem to be trying to downplay it.
> > It's a serious problem, and it has led to the *American* FAA
> grounding
>> all the planes. While ice in the pitot tubes is suspected of producing
> >the faulty airspeed readings, the main cause of the crash of the Air
>> France A330 was pilot error.
>
> That was the same ruling for the A310 Hapag-Lloyd Flight 3378 crash in
> Vienna (back on July 12, 2000). Its like it just ran out of fuel and
> fell out of the sky or something.

No, that's not what happened at all. It had an unretracted landing gear
that caused it to burn fuel faster than expected. The crew used a
flight management system that estimated how far they could go on the
remaining fuel, but that system did not take into account the effect of
increased drag, so they ran out even earlier than anticipated and had to
glide the aircraft toward an airport, which they didn't reach by 500 meters.

Get your facts straight next time.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> "Stormin Mormon" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I know I sure have fewer regrets than you
> > cosmo folks. And, I like it that way. Now, I've
> > got to go shovel up after my mule.
> >
> > Christopher A. Young
>
> Any illusion of culture Alistair Cooke may have given us went down the
> loo when we saw Benny Hill and Mr. Bean.


Don't forget Monty Python & the Lumberjack song.

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:22:21 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> > "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:13:58 -0800, Max Boot wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 1/29/2013 7:04 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Jim Wilkins wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in message
> >> >>> m...
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
> >> >>>>> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the perception
> >> >>>>> of the 787 becoming that of a flaming deathtrap.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Who has died aboard a 787?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to stall
> >> >>> and fall out of the sky without informing its crew? jsw
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Not that I know of. The newest plane I've flown on was a 727.
> >> >> The
> >> >> other was a DC10. I flew to Alaska & back from Ohio in the '70s and
> >> >> have never needed to go anywhere by plane since.
> >> >
> >> > You are the classic example of why cosmopolitan Europeans and Asians
> >> > mock Americans: a bumpkin, a rube, someone who thinks everything in
> >> > the world worth seeing and knowing is within a two hour mule ride
> >> > from your shack.
> >>
> >> Though, oddly, those cosmopolitan euros will flock over on their
> >> tourist bus to take a million photos of his mule and shack ...
> >> "Rustic Americana", very artsy-fartsy dontchaknow.
>
> > I haven't seen a mule since the '60s.
>
> They've built a better one :
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KYnbwXTMXA
>
> > I've seen plenty of European
> > tourrists who could give a mule a lessons on how to be stubborn. Orlando
> > was crawling with them when I worked there as an engineer.
>
> Oh gawd ... Orlando ..... the holy hajj to The Rat ......
>
> > As far as Max, how long has that size 17 US made cowboy boot been up
> > your sorry ass?
>
> I thought hillbillies went barefoot ... makes it
> easier to sneak up on their sisters :-)


I wouldn't know. Is tht how your sister got pregnant 16 times?

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Sixth NTSB update:
|
| January 29
|
| WASHINGTON - The National Transportation Safety Board today
| released the sixth update on its investigation into the
| Jan. 7 fire aboard a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 at Logan
| International Airport in Boston.
|
| The examination of the damaged battery continues. The work
| has transitioned from macroscopic to microscopic
| examinations and into chemical and elemental analysis of
| the areas of internal short circuiting and thermal damage.
|
| Examination and testing of the exemplar battery from the
| JAL airplane has begun at the Carderock Division of the
| Naval Surface Warfare Center laboratories. Detailed
| examinations will be looking for signs of in-service damage
| and manufacturing defects. The test program will include
| mechanical and electrical tests to determine the
| performance of the battery, and to uncover signs of any
| degradation in expected performance.
|
| As a party contributing to the investigation, Boeing is
| providing pertinent fleet information, which will help
| investigators understand the operating history of
| lithium-ion batteries on those airplanes.
|
| An investigative group continued to interpret data from the
| two digital flight data recorders on the aircraft, and is
| examining recorded signals to determine if they might yield
| additional information about the performance of the battery
| and the operation of the charging system.
|
| In addition to the activities in Washington, investigators
| are continuing their work in Seattle and Japan.
|
| Additional information on the NTSB's investigation of the
| Japan Airlines B-787 battery fire in Boston is available at
| http://go.usa.gov/4K4J.
|
| The NTSB will provide another factual update on Friday,
| Feb. 1, or earlier if developments warrant. To be alerted
| to any updates or developments, follow the NTSB on Twitter
| at www.twitter.com/ntsb.
|
<http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130129b.html>

--bks

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
>>... All the warnings
>> were there except for the indicators on the instrument panel.
>
> All the warnings were NOT there, and the ones they had were
> misleading. The stall indicator shut off below a minimum airspeed
> and came on when they correctly put the nose down and gained speed.

I finally found it on page 44 of the main body of the BEA inquest:
"............If the CAS measurements for
the three ADR are lower than 60 kt, the angle of attack values of the
three ADR are
invalid and the stall warning is then inoperative. This results from a
logic stating that
the airflow must be sufficient to ensure a valid measurement by the
angle of attack
sensors, especially to prevent spurious warnings."

The stall warning and pitch attitude graphs are on page 6 of appendix
3.

jsw

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| The lithium ion batteries installed on the Boeing 787 are
| inherently unsafe, says Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX and
| owner of electric car maker Tesla.
|
| "Unfortunately, the pack architecture supplied to Boeing is
| inherently unsafe," writes Musk in an email to Flightglobal.
| ...
| Musk's assessments of battery cells were confirmed by
| Donald Sadoway, a professor of electrical engineering at
| the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
|
| "I would have used the same words," says Sadoway. "I would
| have used the same words. I'm glad someone with such a big
| reputation put it on the line."
| ...
<http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/elon-musk-boeing-787-battery-fundamentally-unsafe-381627/>

--bks

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:18:26 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:50:31 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>
>>>> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>>>>> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
>>>>> perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
>>>>> deathtrap.
>>>
>>>> Who has died aboard a 787?
>>>
>>>Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to stall
>>>and fall out of the sky without informing its crew?
>>>jsw
>>>
>> Like the nut holding the wheel of the 350z, the pilots of that plane
>> were awfully close to brain dead to allow that to happen. They were
>> just playing a video game - NOT FLYING THE PLANE. All the warnings
>> were there except for the indicators on the instrument panel.
>
>All the warnings were NOT there, and the ones they had were
>misleading. The stall indicator shut off below a minimum airspeed and
>came on when they correctly put the nose down and gained speed. The
>stalled plane remained fairly level and controllable in pitch as it
>fell at a very low forward airspeed, a condition the FCS apparently
>didn't understand. Roll control was harder and kept them occupied.
>They advanced the throttles to TakeOff/Go-Around power and kept the
>nose slightly high, which SHOULD have been the proper procedure if
>they'd had more airspeed. At night in a storm they were purely on IFR,
>with no visual cues and airspeed indicators that had been and could
>still be(?) reading low only because they had iced up.
>
A friend of mine was a 300 series training officer for a major airline
and said if the pilot had a pulse and a brain there was no reason for
the plane to crash. The GPS was still functioning, giving them an
indication of ground speed and altitude. Ground speed and air speed
are not the same - obviously, but they could still figure out they
were flying too slow. Stormscope told them what kind of storm
conditions they were getting into as well - no excuse for it.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:31:09 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
> wrote:

>"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
>> > wrote in message
>>>... All the warnings
>>> were there except for the indicators on the instrument panel.
>>
>> All the warnings were NOT there, and the ones they had were
>> misleading. The stall indicator shut off below a minimum airspeed
>> and came on when they correctly put the nose down and gained speed.
>
>I finally found it on page 44 of the main body of the BEA inquest:
>"............If the CAS measurements for
>the three ADR are lower than 60 kt, the angle of attack values of the
>three ADR are
>invalid and the stall warning is then inoperative. This results from a
>logic stating that
>the airflow must be sufficient to ensure a valid measurement by the
>angle of attack
>sensors, especially to prevent spurious warnings."
>
>The stall warning and pitch attitude graphs are on page 6 of appendix
>3.
>
>jsw
>
And there was no reason under the sun (or stars) for an A3 to be
flying anywhere CLOSE to 60 kt. Minimum landing soeed is over twice
that speed EMPTY. And it goes up the heavier the plane is.

It is virtually impossible to "stall" a functioning A3X plane - it
will just descend like an elevator, under full control. The GPS will
show a rapid rate of descent even when the static port is totally
blocked.

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:31:09 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
> > wrote:

> And there was no reason under the sun (or stars) for an A3 to be
> flying anywhere CLOSE to 60 kt. Minimum landing soeed is over twice
> that speed EMPTY. And it goes up the heavier the plane is.
>
> It is virtually impossible to "stall" a functioning A3X plane - it
> will just descend like an elevator, under full control. The GPS will
> show a rapid rate of descent even when the static port is totally
> blocked.

And yet they did stall it, at extreme altitude in "coffin corner", and
then fell flat with an indicated forward airspeed below the 60kt
threshold until they pitched down, which triggered the stall warning
for the wrong reason. The altimeter tape showed them that they were
falling, but not why.

Now they know and that particular accident is extremely unlikely to
repeat, but what other unusual condition wasn't predicted or tested by
the programmers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroper%C3%BA_Flight_603

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Jan 10, 2:02*pm, Transition Zone > wrote:
> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:23:55 -0500
> Local: Thurs, Dec 23 2010 9:23 pm
>
> JF Mezei > wrote:
>
> > On December 23rd, Boeing announced it is now resuming flight testing on
> > ZA004.
> > They have updated the power distrubution *software* and will test this,
> > along with deployment of RAT before resuming normal testing for
> > certification.
> > So it appears that the hammer that was left in some electrical cabinet
> > probably highlighted some software problems. Thankfully, updating
> > software is less tedious than having to dismantly, change a part and
> > reassemble the number of 787s already built.
>
> A Week Boeing Would Like To Forget
> By Alex Zolbert, CNN, updated 2:01 PM EST, Thu January 10, 2013
>
> More concerns for Dreamliner - (CNN) -- Some passengers pay no
> attention to what type of airplane they'll be flying on. Others are
> obsessed.
> I'd put myself in the middle of the pack, mainly due to the new planes
> on offer from Airbus and Boeing.
> So I was in slightly better spirits this week, as I boarded the 11-
> hour United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo this week.
> It was my first chance to fly on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
> But the trip quickly descended into -- certainly not a nightmare --
> but definitely a headache.
> Dreamliner catches fire at airport
>
> It's a drill millions of travelers know all too well.
> After starting the taxi out to the runway Monday morning, we were
> informed that there was an issue with the computer system, and they
> were unable to start one of the plane's engines. We remained onboard
> for nearly 3 hours, as flight attendants sheepishly offered cups of
> water to frustrated passengers.
> Eventually we disembarked.
> A delay of four hours turned into five, then six, seven ... and the
> flight was eventually canceled.
> We then had the pleasure of spending the night at an airport hotel
> that seemed to have been last updated around the time commercial air
> travel started.
> It was then that I realized we weren't the only ones encountering
> issues with the Dreamliner on Monday.
> A Japan Airlines' 787 caught fire in Boston after passengers
> disembarked.
>
> Boeing said the fire was traced to a battery unit that helps to power
> electrical systems when the engines are idle -- typically while a
> plane is being serviced or cleaned. And the company says it's
> cooperating with investigators.
> As Tuesday morning arrived, we were back on board another United
> Airlines' Dreamliner in Los Angeles.
> But in a rather comical turn of events, the second plane never left
> the gate.
> We were told there was an issue with the paperwork filed with the FAA.
> More than a day late, many coffees, and very little sleep later, the
> third time finally proved to be the charm -- more than 24 hours after
> our scheduled departure.
> But as we finally took to the skies, more Dreamliner issues were
> unfolding.
> Another Japan Airlines' 787 in Boston had to scrap a takeoff on
> Tuesday due to a fuel leak. And an ANA Dreamliner flight was canceled
> in Japan on Wednesday, because of a glitch with its brake system.
> But Boeing is standing by its latest aircraft. The company's chief
> project engineer, Mike Sinnett, says he is "100% convinced the
> airplane is safe to fly."
>
> Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
> have "growing pains."
> But what is very clear is this was a week that Boeing would certainly
> like to forget.
> After a nearly 40-hour trip back home, I'll second that.
>
> --http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/business/dreamliner-los-angeles/

Another week...and the 787 is still GROUNDED.

Any guess how many MILLIONS OF DOLLARS this has cost Boeing?

TMT

TMT

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| Even before two battery failures led to the grounding of
| all Boeing 787 jets this month, the lithium-ion batteries
| used on the aircraft had experienced multiple problems that
| raised questions about their reliability.
|
| Officials at All Nippon Airways, the jets' biggest
| operator, said in an interview on Tuesday that it had
| replaced 10 of the batteries in the months before fire and
| smoke in two cases caused regulators around the world to
| ground the jets.
| ...
| Kelly Nantel, a spokeswoman for the National Transportation
| Safety Board, said investigators had only recently heard
| that there had been "numerous issues with the use of these
| batteries" on 787s. She said the board had asked Boeing,
| All Nippon and other airlines for information about the
| problems.
|
| In a little-noticed test in 2010, the F.A.A. found that the
| kind of lithium-ion chemistry that Boeing planned to use --
| lithium cobalt -- was the most flammable of several
| possible types. The test found that that type of battery
| provided the most power, but could also overheat more
| quickly.
| ...
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/business/boeing-aware-of-battery-ills-before-the-fires.html>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Yow!
|
| Boeing had numerous reliability issues with the main
| batteries on its 787 Dreamliner long before the two battery
| incidents this month grounded the entire fleet.
|
| More than 100 of the lithium ion batteries have failed and
| had to be returned to the Japanese manufacturer, according
| to a person inside the 787 program with direct knowledge.
|
| "We have had at least 100, possibly approaching 150, bad
| batteries so far," the person said. "It's common."
|
| The frequency of battery failures reflects issues with the
| design of the electrical system around the battery, said
| the person on the 787 program.
| ...
<http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020241385_787deadbatteriesxml.html>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| TOKYO - (AP) -- U.S. transport safety regulators have asked
| Boeing Co. to provide a full operating history of the
| lithium-ion batteries used in its grounded 787 Dreamliners.
|
| The National Transportation Safety Board said in a
| statement it made the request after recently becoming aware
| of battery incidents that occurred before a Jan. 7 battery
| fire in a 787 parked at Boston's Logan International
| Airport.
| ...
<http://www.newsday.com/business/us-regulator-asks-boeing-for-full-battery-history-1.4532223>

--bks

[Transition Zone]

On Jan 29, 4:45*pm, Max Boot > wrote:
> On 1/29/2013 1:13 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 3:02 pm, Max Boot > wrote:
> >> On 1/29/2013 11:40 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> >>> "Max Boot" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> On 1/29/2013 8:50 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> >>> So Europeans are fully justified in crucifying Boeing over a battery
> >>> that harmed no one, but Americans MUST NOT embarrassingly mention the
> >>> fatal crash of an Airbus that was in perfect working condition when it
> >>> smashed into the ocean?
>
> >>> Such fragile egos!
>
> >> Okay, so you're not just an untraveled rube and bumpkin, you're also
> >> hyper-nationalistic and sensitive about being an untraveled rube.
>
> > * *>I haven't seen anything to suggest Europeans are "crucifying" [sic]
> >> * Boeing over the battery problem. *You seem to be trying to downplay it.
> > * > *It's a serious problem, and it has led to the *American* FAA
> > grounding
> >> * all the planes. *While ice in the pitot tubes is suspected of producing
> > * >the faulty airspeed readings, the main cause of the crash of the Air
> >> * France A330 was pilot error.
>
> > That was the same ruling for the A310 Hapag-Lloyd Flight 3378 crash in
> > Vienna (back on July 12, 2000). *Its like it just ran out of fuel and
> > fell out of the sky or something.
>
> No, that's not what happened at all. *It had an unretracted landing gear
> that caused it to burn fuel faster than expected. *The crew used a
> flight management system that estimated how far they could go on the
> remaining fuel, but that system did not take into account the
effect of
>increased drag, so they ran out even earlier than anticipated and had to
> glide the aircraft toward an airport, which they didn't reach by 500 meters.
>
> Get your facts straight next time.

So how is all that NOT pilot error huh, smartalek ?

[Transition Zone]

On Jan 29, 4:40*pm, "Jim Wilkins" > wrote:
> "Transition Zone" > wrote in message
>
> news:c67b5f86-745c-46fc-9534-
>
> >That was the same ruling for theA310 Hapag-Lloyd Flight 3378 crash in
> > Vienna (back on July 12, 2000). *Its like it just ran out of fuel and
> > fell out of the sky or something.
>
> The wiki says the landing gear wouldn't fully retract and the FMS
>miscalculated their remaining range. They aborted to Vienna and had to
> glide the last 20km, hitting 500m short.

Honestly though, if there were ever any doubt about Airbus landing
gear from that incident, it may have been either helped or hurt later,
on September 21, 2005, by the A320 that had to go back to LAX and land
after its nose wheel was accidentally at a 90 degree turn. (it looked
scary when it was trying to land)

[Max Boot]

On 1/30/2013 12:30 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
> On Jan 29, 4:45 pm, Max Boot > wrote:
>> On 1/29/2013 1:13 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 29, 3:02 pm, Max Boot > wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/2013 11:40 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>
>>>>> "Max Boot" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 1/29/2013 8:50 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>
>>>>> So Europeans are fully justified in crucifying Boeing over a battery
>>>>> that harmed no one, but Americans MUST NOT embarrassingly mention the
>>>>> fatal crash of an Airbus that was in perfect working condition when it
>>>>> smashed into the ocean?
>>
>>>>> Such fragile egos!
>>
>>>> Okay, so you're not just an untraveled rube and bumpkin, you're also
>>>> hyper-nationalistic and sensitive about being an untraveled rube.
>>
>>> >I haven't seen anything to suggest Europeans are "crucifying" [sic]
>>>> Boeing over the battery problem. You seem to be trying to downplay it.
>>> > It's a serious problem, and it has led to the *American* FAA
>>> grounding
>>>> all the planes. While ice in the pitot tubes is suspected of producing
>>> >the faulty airspeed readings, the main cause of the crash of the Air
>>>> France A330 was pilot error.
>>
>>> That was the same ruling for the A310 Hapag-Lloyd Flight 3378 crash in
>>> Vienna (back on July 12, 2000). Its like it just ran out of fuel and
>>> fell out of the sky or something.
>>
>> No, that's not what happened at all. It had an unretracted landing gear
>> that caused it to burn fuel faster than expected. The crew used a
>> flight management system that estimated how far they could go on the
>> remaining fuel, but that system did not take into account theeffect of
>> increased drag, so they ran out even earlier than anticipated and had to
>> glide the aircraft toward an airport, which they didn't reach by 500 meters.
>>
>> Get your facts straight next time.
>
> So how is all that NOT pilot error huh, smartalek ?

It *was* mainly pilot error, you stupid drooling fat ****. By saying
"Its [sic] like it just ran out of fuel and fell out of the sky or
something", you suggested it was something else.

It was only partly pilot error. They relied on a "Flight Management
System" tool to estimate fuel consumption, but the program didn't take
drag into account and so gave an invalid figure.

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Jan 29, 10:41*pm, (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> Yow!
> *|
> *| Boeing had numerous reliability issues with the main
> *| batteries on its 787 Dreamliner long before the two battery
> *| incidents this month grounded the entire fleet.
> *|
> *| More than 100 of the lithium ion batteries have failed and
> *| had to be returned to the Japanese manufacturer, according
> *| to a person inside the 787 program with direct knowledge.
> *|
> *| "We have had at least 100, possibly approaching 150, bad
> *| batteries so far," the person said. "It's common."
> *|
> *| The frequency of battery failures reflects issues with the
> *| design of the electrical system around the battery, said
> *| the person on the 787 program.
> *| ...
> <http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020241385_787deadbat...>
>
> * * --bks

Yeah..I saw that article.

This will NOT be any quick fix.

Anybody hear how much this has cost Boeing and the airlines so far?

It would be in the millions and counting.


TMT

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Too_Many_Tools > wrote:
> ...
>Anybody hear how much this has cost Boeing and the airlines so far?

|
| According to industry expert John Hansman, the footprint of
| a traditional battery could be accommodated in the avionics
| bays or via split system, and weight would be manageable,
| noted Deutsche Bank. In a worst case scenario, it could
| take Boeing 3 to 6 months to develop a traditional battery
| solution for use in the 787. Meanwhile, the cost pf
| grounding the 787 is estimated at $300 million per month in
| airline penalties plus R&D and related costs.
| ...
<http://www.streetinsider.com/Analyst+Comments/Boeing+%28BA%29+787+Traditional+Battery+Fix+Contem plated%2C+Grounding+Costs+%24300MMonth/8039591.html>

--bks

[Transition Zone]

On Jan 26, 2:42*am, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>
>
> *Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap.
>That's ALL it takes to destroy it.

No, because no one has died in that Boeing 787 plane yet, like with
another Airbus plane.
Another fatal crash landing killed a person or so, I think, here in
this video of an Airbus A319 (which came out only a little before this
incident).

-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fh8-qJqMX4

[Delvin Benet]

On 1/25/2013 11:42 PM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:
>
>> When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get it...
>> -----------------------
>>
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> Now from a business point of view however ...
>> <snip>
>>
>> These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an event
>> that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration, clearly
>> this is no emergency.
>
> That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do
> with how potential passengers should act or react.
>
> Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap.

No, they are not. You're full of ****. When that plane resumes
commercial service, the vast majority of air passengers will get on it
with little concern.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| When it came time for U.S. regulators to certify the safety
| of Boeing Co.'s 787 Dreamliner and its new technologies,
| they relied on the planemaker's engineers to oversee final
| tests and vouch for their company's work.
|
| The Federal Aviation Administration has operated that way
| for many years, even as government audits have found those
| efforts were sometimes poorly overseen and led to errors.
| The agency in 2005 began allowing Boeing and other
| manufacturers to pick the engineers, who previously were
| chosen by the FAA.
| ...
<http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130131/BIZ/701319885>

|
| And while its exciting to see everybody as energized as a
| certain battery bunny over questions about electrons and
| cathodes and battery management systems, I worry that when
| the headlines bounce from one potential "cause" to another,
| the real hazard will will fade from view. That real hazard
| as I see it is the manufacturer's reliance on the extremely
| volatile cobalt oxide flavor of litihum ion.
| ...
<http://blog.seattlepi.com/flyinglessons/2013/01/29/dreamliner-use-of-hazardous-battery-like-wack-a-mole/>

--bks

[Transition Zone]

On Jan 31, 4:35*pm, (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
>
> That real hazard
> *| as I see it is the manufacturer's reliance on the extremely
> *| volatile cobalt oxide flavor of litihum ion.
> *| ...
> <http://blog.seattlepi.com/flyinglessons/2013/01/29/dreamliner-use-of-...>

"The most dangerous time to be around a LiCo cell is when it is
charging. The danger exists because the chemistry can become very
unstable if it becomes overcharged. "
-- http://www.rigcast.com/flashlights/lithium-ion-guide/

[Bradley K. Sherman]

NTSB 7th update

Synopsis:
Navy research, no result.
DoE rep has been added to the investigation.
NTSB going to France to get Thales' take on the question.
First update with *no next scheduled update*!

Full text:
|
| NTSB issues seventh update on JAL Boeing 787 battery fire
| investigation
|
| February 1
|
| WASHINGTON - The National Transportation Safety Board today
| released the seventh update on its investigation into the
| Jan. 7 fire aboard a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 at Logan
| International Airport in Boston.
|
| The auxiliary power unit battery, manufactured by GS Yuasa,
| was the original battery delivered with the airplane on
| December 20, 2012. It is comprised of eight individual
| cells. All eight cells came from the same manufacturing lot
| in July 2012. The battery was assembled in September 2012
| and installed on the aircraft on October 15, 2012. It was
| first charged on October 19, 2012.
|
| Examination and testing of an exemplar battery got underway
| earlier this week at the Carderock Division of the Naval
| Surface Warfare Center laboratories in West Bethesda, MD.
| The tests consisted of electrical measurements, mass
| measurements, and infrared thermal imaging of each cell,
| with no anomalies noted. The cells are currently undergoing
| CT scanning to examine their internal condition. In
| addition, on Thursday, a battery expert from the Department
| of Energy joined the investigative team to lend his
| expertise to the ongoing testing and validation work.
|
| NTSB investigators were made aware of reports of prior
| battery replacements on aircraft in the 787 fleet, early in
| the investigation. As reported Tuesday, Boeing, a party to
| the investigation, is providing pertinent fleet information
| which investigators will review to determine if there is
| any relevance to the JAL investigation.
|
| An investigative group continued to interpret data from the
| two digital flight data recorders on the aircraft, and is
| examining recorded signals to determine if they might yield
| additional information about the performance of the battery
| and the operation of the charging system.
|
| Next week, the NTSB battery testing team will initiate a
| non-invasive "soft short" test of all cells of the exemplar
| battery. This test will reveal the presence of any high
| resistance, small or "soft" shorts within a cell. Also, an
| NTSB investigator will travel to France with the battery
| contactor from the JAL event battery, for examination at
| the manufacturer. The battery contactor connects a wiring
| bundle from the airplane to the battery.
|
| Investigators are continuing their work in Washington and
| Japan and the team in Seattle continues to observe the
| FAA-led review of the certification process for the 787
| battery system. The flow of information from these
| observations helps to inform NTSB investigative activity in
| the US and around the world.
|
<http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130201b.html>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Boeing blows smoke:
| ...
| We now have hundreds of people at Boeing, some of our best
| and brightest, dedicated exclusively to solving this issue.
| In addition, we've tapped into the pool of Technical
| Fellows at Boeing, which offers deep knowledge across
| diverse technical areas. These individuals achieve this
| coveted designation after demonstrating expertise
| recognized by leaders in Boeing, as well as across the
| industry.
|
| We've also reached out to a handful of retired experts.
| Seven retired executives and technology leaders make up our
| Senior Advisory Group, which provides valuable
| experience-based perspective and counsel to teams designing
| and manufacturing. Together they have more than 230 years
| of collective Boeing experience and have been awarded a
| total of 46 industry awards and accolades.
| ...
<http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2013/02/when_the_going_gets_tough_boei.html>

Seven retired executives? They must be joking.

--bks

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 23:28:56 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

>Boeing blows smoke:
> | ...
> | We now have hundreds of people at Boeing, some of our best
> | and brightest, dedicated exclusively to solving this issue.
> | In addition, we've tapped into the pool of Technical
> | Fellows at Boeing, which offers deep knowledge across
> | diverse technical areas. These individuals achieve this
> | coveted designation after demonstrating expertise
> | recognized by leaders in Boeing, as well as across the
> | industry.
> |
> | We've also reached out to a handful of retired experts.
> | Seven retired executives and technology leaders make up our
> | Senior Advisory Group, which provides valuable
> | experience-based perspective and counsel to teams designing
> | and manufacturing. Together they have more than 230 years
> | of collective Boeing experience and have been awarded a
> | total of 46 industry awards and accolades.
> | ...
><http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2013/02/when_the_going_gets_tough_boei.html>
>
>Seven retired executives? They must be joking.
>
> --bks
Your reading comprehension not too good, or your attention span
REALLY short. You forgot the "and technology leaders"

[Bradley K. Sherman]

> wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 23:28:56 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
>Sherman) wrote:
>> | ...
>> | We've also reached out to a handful of retired experts.
>> | Seven retired executives and technology leaders make up our
>> | Senior Advisory Group, which provides valuable
>> | ...
>><http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2013/02/when_the_going_gets_tough_boei.html>
>>
>>Seven retired executives? They must be joking.
>>
> Your reading comprehension not too good, or your attention span
>REALLY short. You forgot the "and technology leaders"

Is Boeing short of executives and "technology leaders"?
They're paying CEO McNerney $22,000,000/year. At that
price he should be able to figure out what's wrong with
the battery all by himself.

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

McNerney gets paid $400,000 per week for this? Yow!
| ...
| In 2008, as problems and delays continued to mount for the
| Dreamliner, Mr. McNerney toured several of Boeing's key
| suppliers. At one plant, which made part of the fuselage,
| he asked managers what was keeping their production line
| from moving. They told him they were waiting on a part that
| Boeing itself made. Mr. McNerney expressed surprise,
| according to someone present at the meeting.
|
| Mr. McNerney has conceded that Boeing went too far in
| spreading out the 787's supply chain. "We got a little bit
| seduced that it would all come together seamlessly and the
| same design rules would be applied everywhere in the world
| and corners wouldn't be cut and financial realities
| wouldn't hit certain folks," Mr. McNerney told an audience
| at an event in September.
|
| To hasten completion of the complicated new aircraft, the
| CEO aggressively replaced key managers.
| ...
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324039504578260164279497602.html>

--bks

[Stormin Mormon]

The integrated approach isn't working, so they
bring in new people who aren't integrated and
probably don't work together?

I'm not optomistic.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Bradley K. Sherman" > wrote in message
...
McNerney gets paid $400,000 per week for this? Yow!
| ...
| In 2008, as problems and delays continued to mount for the
| Dreamliner, Mr. McNerney toured several of Boeing's key
| suppliers. At one plant, which made part of the fuselage,
| he asked managers what was keeping their production line
| from moving. They told him they were waiting on a part that
| Boeing itself made. Mr. McNerney expressed surprise,
| according to someone present at the meeting.
|
| Mr. McNerney has conceded that Boeing went too far in
| spreading out the 787's supply chain. "We got a little bit
| seduced that it would all come together seamlessly and the
| same design rules would be applied everywhere in the world
| and corners wouldn't be cut and financial realities
| wouldn't hit certain folks," Mr. McNerney told an audience
| at an event in September.
|
| To hasten completion of the complicated new aircraft, the
| CEO aggressively replaced key managers.
| ...
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324039504578260164279497602.html>

--bks

[Gunner[_2_]]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:57:11 -0000, "Keith W"
> wrote:

>Mr.B1ack wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:16:31 -0800, Delvin Benet wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/28/2013 5:08 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 27, 2:19 am, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 25, 9:54 pm, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like
>>>>>>>> anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far these
>>>>>>>> issues haven't caused any fatalities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly
>>>>>>> fatalities on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at
>>>>>>> Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport. Airbus's A380 had terrible delays,
>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrevelant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being dangerous.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the A320 didn't?
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's all-important.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's all that counts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 787 is *done*.
>>>>>
>>>>> I *way* doubt that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.
>>>
>>> I don't fly much any more - it's a miserable experience since 9/11 no
>>> matter what the plane is - but I wouldn't have flown on the 787
>>> until it had been in service for a year or so.
>>>
>>> This battery problem is worse than the average sort of aeronautical
>>> hiccup - more like a serious case of indigestion - but they'll
>>> overcome it.
>>
>> They'll overcome it - technically - but will that
>> help in terms of public *perception* ? If the public
>> thinks it's a deathtrap then why would airlines buy
>> any ? Switch to Airbus instead.
>>
>> Remember Value-Jet ? Remember the flaming CRASH ?
>> The *name* 'Value-Jet' became inviable - and they
>> had to change it to "Jet-Blue".
>>
>> I don't think Boeing can try that trick.
>>
>
>erm Valujet did not change to JetBlue thats a quite
>different airline
>
>> Recall the planes, spend a year REALLY debugging
>> them ... then re-issue them as the '797' instead.
>> Tweak the cosmetics a bit too ... then it will
>> *seem* like a new plane and public paranoia will
>> be avoided. Yea, it'll be 99.5 percent the 787,
>> but *perception* is what's gonna count.
>>
>
>Says the man who perceived Jetblue as the reincarnation of Valujet.
>
>The reality is that MANY new aircraft have suffered minor
>engineering issues that caused them to be grounded for
>a while including the new Airbus 380
>
>
>Keith
>
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-19/wall_street/30054350_1_tail-fin-rudder-problems-vertical-stabilizer

Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

[Gunner[_2_]]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:09:25 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
> wrote:

>"Max Boot" > wrote in message
...
>> On 1/29/2013 7:42 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>
>> Struck a nerve, I see. I'm guessing you've never traveled. In
>> fact, it's all but a certainty.
>
>Don't hire yourself out as a detective.
>
>I wore out a set of Reifen travelling around Europe as a field sevice
>repairman for two years.
>

LOL

Gunner, 55-65,000 miles a year for the past 15 yrs as a service tech.



The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

[Vaughn]

On 2/2/2013 6:46 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> The integrated approach isn't working, so they
> bring in new people who aren't integrated and
> probably don't work together?
>
Yep, that group might not help at all. On the other hand, it's hard to
imagine how getting fresh minds with fresh ideas working on a tough
problem like this can be a bad thing. Compared to the cost of the
problem, the cost of this team is miniscule.

(Trollish crossposts to unrelated groups snipped)

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
> wrote:

>
>Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
>down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
>off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
>awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
>IRRC

Turbojet, but maybe this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
square windows in the early models.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| Company engineers blame the 787's outsourced supply chain,
| saying that poor quality components are coming from
| subcontractors that have operated largely out of Boeing's
| view.
|
| "The risk to the company is not this battery, even though
| this is really bad right now," said one 787 electrical
| engineer, who asked not to be identified. "The real problem
| is the power panels."
|
| Unlike earlier Boeing jets, he said, the innards of the 787
| power distribution panels -- which control the flow of
| electricity to the plane's many systems -- are "like Radio
| Shack," with parts that are "cheap, plastic and prone to
| failure."
| ...
| "The supplier management organization (at Boeing) didn't
| have diddly-squat in terms of engineering capability when
| they sourced all that work," he said.
| ...
<http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020275838_boeingoutsourcingxml.html?prmid=4939>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| Boeing has deployed hundreds of engineers to fix the
| battery-related trouble that grounded the 787.
|
| But what about its 10 supposedly independent directors, who
| serve on the board chaired by Chief Executive James
| McNerney?
| ...
| Taken together, it's a cozy board largely of elite
| professional managers and political movers. The risk of
| living in a bubble is significant. There's no shareholder
| activist. No union member. No cantankerous John Smale to
| ask tough questions and demand change. Not one aircraft
| engineer.
| ...
<http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020268550_biztaltoncol03xml.html>

--bks

[george152]

On 03/02/13 16:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
>> down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
>> off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
>> awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
>> IRRC
>
> Turbojet, but maybe this one?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
>
> They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
> square windows in the early models.
The same aircraft type flew for many years after that in a marine
defence anti submarine role

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>Marvin the Martian > wrote:
>>
>>I love it when people who have no ****ing idea what's going on, make ****
>>up like "a minor tweek will fix it".
>
>I used to write the firmware for battery charging systems for a living.
>At two different jobs. This qualifies me as someone who *does* have
>a ****ing idea what's going on.
>
>This will be, relatively speaking, a minor tweak.

| ...
| Hajime Tozaki, a Waseda University professor specializing
| in transport policy, said it may take "up to a year" to
| determine the cause, given that a variety of innovative
| technologies were used in the new fuel-efficient jet.
| ...
<http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/02/04/business/787-to-weigh-on-airlines-as-safety-concerns-drag-on/#.UQ62zn1AbAM>

--bks

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 19:55:25 +0000 (UTC), (Edward A.
Falk) wrote:

>In article >,
>Marvin the Martian > wrote:
>>
>>I love it when people who have no ****ing idea what's going on, make ****
>>up like "a minor tweek will fix it".
>
>I used to write the firmware for battery charging systems for a living.
>At two different jobs. This qualifies me as someone who *does* have
>a ****ing idea what's going on.
>
>This will be, relatively speaking, a minor tweak.
Thanks Ed.

[Gunner[_2_]]

On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 22:05:48 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
>>down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
>>off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
>>awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
>>IRRC
>
>Turbojet, but maybe this one?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
>
>They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
>square windows in the early models.
>
>
>Best regards,
>Spehro Pefhany


Ayup..I think that was it.




The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

[Andrew Chaplin]

george152 > wrote in
:

> On 03/02/13 16:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
>>> down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
>>> off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
>>> awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
>>> IRRC
>>
>> Turbojet, but maybe this one?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
>>
>> They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
>> square windows in the early models.
>
> The same aircraft type flew for many years after that in a marine
> defence anti submarine role

With differently shaped windows, IIRC.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[george152]

On 04/02/13 11:13, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> george152 > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 03/02/13 16:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
>>>> down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
>>>> off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
>>>> awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
>>>> IRRC
>>>
>>> Turbojet, but maybe this one?
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
>>>
>>> They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
>>> square windows in the early models.
>>
>> The same aircraft type flew for many years after that in a marine
>> defence anti submarine role
>
> With differently shaped windows, IIRC.
>

You only need the cockpit windows the flight crew use :)

[Mark Thorson]

Gunner wrote:
>
> Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
> down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
> off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
> awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
> IRRC

The movie was filmed in 1951.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_highway_in_the_sky

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"george152" > wrote in message
...
> On 03/02/13 16:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
>>> down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
>>> off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
>>> awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
>>> IRRC
>>
>> Turbojet, but maybe this one?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
>>
>> They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice
>> big
>> square windows in the early models.
> The same aircraft type flew for many years after that in a marine
> defence anti submarine role
>

It doesn't need to be pressurized at 200'.

[Gunner[_2_]]

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:34:53 +1300, george152 > wrote:

>On 03/02/13 16:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
>>> down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
>>> off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
>>> awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
>>> IRRC
>>
>> Turbojet, but maybe this one?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
>>
>> They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
>> square windows in the early models.
>The same aircraft type flew for many years after that in a marine
>defence anti submarine role


After they fixed the problems of course.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

[pyotr filipivich]

Spehro Pefhany > on Sat, 02 Feb 2013
22:05:48 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
>>down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
>>off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
>>awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
>>IRRC
>
>Turbojet, but maybe this one?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
>
>They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
>square windows in the early models.

Yet at the same time, Boeing had a lot of experience with square
windows and pressurized cabins. Started with the B-29, and the Battle
of Kansas.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| Did FAA let Boeing 'self-certify' safety of 787?
|
| The battery woes that have grounded the global fleet of
| Boeing 787s have raised a persistent question about how the
| Federal Aviation Administration certified the Dreamliner's
| cutting-edge design. The answer: Boeing, not the FAA,
| largely vouched for the airplane's safety.
| ...
<http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020288737_787faaxml.html>

--bks

[Vaughn]

On 2/5/2013 10:01 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> Boeing, not the FAA,
> | largely vouched for the airplane's safety.

Actually, Boeing likely hired engineers that had been
pre-designated/approved by the FAA to do the job. They did this at
great expense! Otherwise, they could have waited for the proper FAA
official to show up, subject to the FAA whims and budget.

I once worked for a company that decided to take that second route.
After all, we all pay taxes right? Compared to a job like certifying a
brand new airliner, what that company wanted to do was simple; They had
purchased the type certificate for an established, certified, glider
which they wished to produce.

They built the factory, they installed all the tooling. From there,
things dragged on for years. Each step of the torturous bureaucratic
process to obtain a production certificate took months. The FAA kept
demanding new paperwork, because that was easier and cheaper than
sending the proper official to inspect the facility.

Small businesses don't have the resources to wait out months and years
of bureaucratic inaction. In the end, the business closed down before
the first airframe was even started.

So that's why the FAA itself did only a minority part of the 787's
certification work. If Boeing waited for them, airlines would still be
flying DC-3's and there would be no Boeing.

In fact, an amazing amount of FAA business is done through privately
hired FAA designees. All four of my check flights have been with FAA
designees rather than FAA inspectors, which means that I had to $$$ pay
them myself. Even though my taxes are supposed to be supporting the FAA.

Just today, I sent off $50.00 to a person who has some sort of magic
authorization to hand my CFI revalidation paperwork to the FAA. I can
do it myself, but only if I make an appointment with an FAA inspector
and travel to the FAA FSDO office to do it in person. (No explanation
why I can't just mail it to them.)

When the FAA moves to the new picture pilot certificates, there will be
a whole new class of FAA designees for us to pay. They will be
authorized to verify our ID, take our pictures, and certify the whole
process. It will be done at the pilot's expense, and it won't be cheap!

Vaughn

(Trollish non-related crossposts removed)

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Vaughn > wrote:
> ...
>So that's why the FAA itself did only a minority part of the 787's
>certification work. If Boeing waited for them, airlines would still be
>flying DC-3's and there would be no Boeing.
> ...

Nonsense!

The change to the regulations that allowed Boeing to specify
the engineers, rather than the FAA, took place just in time for
the 787, in 2005 thanks to the Bush administration. (Will that
stench never leave us?)

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Charlie+ <chasg> wrote:
>> |
>> | Did FAA let Boeing 'self-certify' safety of 787?
>> |
>> | The battery woes that have grounded the global fleet of
>> | Boeing 787s have raised a persistent question about how the
>> | Federal Aviation Administration certified the Dreamliner's
>> | cutting-edge design. The answer: Boeing, not the FAA,
>> | largely vouched for the airplane's safety.
>> | ...
>><http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020288737_787faaxml.html>
>> --bks
>Surely there is no other way of doing the job, otherwise the Certifying
>Authority would have to have all the massive costs and expertise of
>double designing the aircraft?

We spend hundreds of billions a year on military aircraft. What's
the problem with spending a few million on engineers? And as I
pointed out cross-thread, this protocol was changed just in 2005.

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Bush-appointee and rising star D. Hersman of NTSB will have a press
conference Thursday at 11 am EST.

|
| Engineering has been de-emphasized at Boeing so much that
| it's beginning to scare investors, according to Richard
| Aboulafia, the oft-quoted Teal Group aerospace analyst, who
| some have suggested has had a subtle pro-Boeing bias.
|
| Not this month.
| ...
| In his piece, Aboulafia criticized Boeing's stance at its
| Jan. 30 fourth quarter earnings call for a lack of
| "contrition or soul-searching."
|
| Instead, he wrote, it was like, "A farmer showing off a
| great crop but not mentioning that the tractor just broke,
| he fired the mechanic, and outsourced tractor maintenance
| to Bolivia."
|
| Aboulafia listed as problems last year's replacement of
| Boeing Commercial Airplanes' former CEO Jim Albaugh (who
| was an engineer), Boeing's current contract struggle with
| its engineers' union (which he said is partly the union's
| fault), and the Dreamliner's battery issue (which he said
| carried a "strong chance" the plane will require a
| six-to-nine-month grounding for re-certification.)
| ...
<http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/02/06/analyst-aboulafia-warns-boeings.html>

--bks

[Liberal Here]

On Feb 2, 7:48*pm, Gunner > wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:57:11 -0000, "Keith W"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >Mr.B1ack wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:16:31 -0800, Delvin Benet wrote:
>
> >>> On 1/28/2013 5:08 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jan 27, 2:19 am, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jan 25, 9:54 pm, "Mr.B1ack" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like
> >>>>>>>> anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far these
> >>>>>>>> issues haven't caused any fatalities.
>
> >>>>>>> But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly
> >>>>>>> fatalities on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at
> >>>>>>> Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport. *Airbus's A380 had terrible delays,
> >>>>>>> too.
>
> >>>>>> * * Irrevelant.
>
> >>>>>> * * It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being dangerous.
>
> >>>>> And the A320 didn't?
>
> >>>>>> That's all-important.
>
> >>>>>> * That's all that counts.
>
> >>>>>> The 787 is *done*.
>
> >>>>> I *way* doubt that.
>
> >>>> * * Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.
>
> >>> I don't fly much any more - it's a miserable experience since 9/11 no
> >>> matter what the plane is - but I wouldn't have flown on the 787
> >>> until it had been in service for a year or so.
>
> >>> This battery problem is worse than the average sort of aeronautical
> >>> hiccup - more like a serious case of indigestion - but they'll
> >>> overcome it.
>
> >> * They'll overcome *it - technically - but will that
> >> * help in terms of public *perception* ? If the public
> >> * thinks it's a deathtrap then why would airlines buy
> >> * any ? Switch to Airbus instead.
>
> >> * Remember Value-Jet ? Remember the flaming CRASH ?
> >> * The *name* 'Value-Jet' became inviable - and they
> >> * had to change it to "Jet-Blue".
>
> >> * I don't think Boeing can try that trick.
>
> >erm Valujet did not change to JetBlue thats a quite
> >different airline
>
> >> * Recall the planes, spend a year REALLY debugging
> >> * them ... then re-issue them as the '797' instead.
> >> * Tweak the cosmetics a bit too ... then it will
> >> * *seem* like a new plane and public paranoia will
> >> * be avoided. Yea, it'll be 99.5 percent the 787,
> >> * but *perception* is what's gonna count.
>
> >Says the man who perceived Jetblue as the reincarnation of Valujet.
>
> >The reality is that MANY new aircraft have suffered minor
> >engineering issues that caused them to be grounded for
> >a while including the new Airbus 380
>
> >Keith
>
> http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-19/wall_street/30054350_1...
>
> Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
> down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
> off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
> awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
> IRRC
>
> Gunner
>
> The methodology of the left has always been:
>
> 1. Lie
> 2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
> 3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
> 4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
> 5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
> 6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

And you've repeated the above lies how any times now??

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| Federal regulators said on Wednesday that they had approved
| one flight of a Boeing 787, with a flight crew but no
| passengers, as the company's engineers study possible
| changes to the plane's electrical systems that could reduce
| the risk of another battery fire.
| ...
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/business/faa-to-allow-a-787-flight-with-crew-only.html>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

NTSB hearing now in Q&A session. From Hersman's briefing:
o Not caused by mechanical impact on the battery
o Not caused by external short circuit
o Event started in one cell (cell #6) and spread to other cells.

Now looking at the Boeing certification and testing in depth,
with particular attention to the special conditions imposed
by FAA in 2007 on use of Lithium-Ion batteries:
o Boeing estimated chance of smoke emission
at 1 event in 10,000,000 flight hours, however
there were two events in less than 100,000 hours.
o Boeing said that design of battery would
prevent cell-to-cell propagation but NTSB
claims that is exactly what would happend.

Interim factual report will be issued within 30 days.
FAA makes the calls on flying, not NTSB.

--bks

[Mr.B1ack[_3_]]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:33:34 +0000, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:

> NTSB hearing now in Q&A session. From Hersman's briefing:
> o Not caused by mechanical impact on the battery o Not caused by
> external short circuit o Event started in one cell (cell #6) and
> spread to other cells.


Lithium-ion batteries are nefarious for
suddenly bursting into flame. Dell and Sony
lost a ****load of money because of flaming
laptops.

Nickel-metal-hydride batteries still exist and
are the logical, safer, replacement technology.
Don't hold quite as much energy per unit weight
though and don't have quite as long a service
life either. Still, if it means yer plane doesn't
go down in flames with 600 passengers ....


> Now looking at the Boeing certification and testing in depth, with
> particular attention to the special conditions imposed by FAA in 2007 on
> use of Lithium-Ion batteries:
> o Boeing estimated chance of smoke emission
> at 1 event in 10,000,000 flight hours, however there were two events
> in less than 100,000 hours.
> o Boeing said that design of battery would
> prevent cell-to-cell propagation but NTSB claims that is exactly
> what would happend.
>
> Interim factual report will be issued within 30 days. FAA makes the
> calls on flying, not NTSB.

Boeing was way behind on their orders ... so they
slapped a lot of lipstick on the 787 and declared
it safe and ready for service. Supposed federal
oversight was, as usual, nearly non-existent.

[Gunner[_2_]]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:15:47 -0800 (PST), Liberal Here
> wrote:

>> Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
>> down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
>> off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
>> awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
>> IRRC
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>> The methodology of the left has always been:
>>
>> 1. Lie
>> 2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
>> 3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
>> 4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
>> 5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
>> 6. Then everyone must conform to the lie
>
>And you've repeated the above lies how any times now??

Which lies might those be? The movie about british aircraft snapping
off tails was indeed ID'ed

The sig is 100% accurate and remains a polished and accurate way to
**** you Leftwingers off as its accuracy is well established and you
simply cannot stand to have it flaunted in your faces.

<VBG>

Now back to the bit bucket..troll

<plink>

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

[Transition Zone]

On Feb 11, 4:32*pm, Transition Zone > wrote:
> On Feb 11, 12:41*am, Daryl > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/10/2013 3:36 PM, Keith W wrote:
>
> > > Daryl wrote:
> > >> On 2/10/2013 11:00 AM, Keith W wrote:
> > >>> Vaughn wrote:
>
> > >> I have no idea why they chose the one they did. *Yes it has a
> > >> high density rate but it's also the one that some cell phones and
> > >> laptops used that companies like HP and Dell had to recall due to
> > >> that exact same problem.
>
> > >> The electric Cars (save for 2500 Tesla Hotrods that are out of
> > >> manufacture) are going to Lithium and Magnesium batteries these
> > >> days. *Not as high density as the LiPO4 or the LICO like is in
> > >> the 747 but it's much safer. *No the LiMag battery has a shorter
> > >> life span but in order to get it to catch fire you pretty well
> > >> have to short it directly across to do a really, really fast
> > >> discharge or really, really overcharge it. *There has been one
> > >> recorded fire from the LiMag batter and that was GM parking it in
> > >> the middle of an open field and shorting it completely across.
> > >> It took it 45 minutes to ignite. *OH, did I mention it costs less?
>
> > >> Daryl
>
> > > The reason that a LiCoO2 battery was chosen is quite simple, when
> > > the contract was signed in 2005 it was the only lithium based
> > > battery certified for aviation use.
>
> > Considering I ran a LiMag battery since 2005, I find that hard to
> > believe unless there were some greased palms along the way to get
>
> * >that critter * *(LiCo) certified. *It's too dangerous for the
> Auto> Industry and the Bike Industry just plain won't use them either.
>
> *>Even most of the Computer and Phone Industry has stopped using> *it due to some serious fire issues.
>
> *> I just found out that the lithium-iron phosphate (lipo) IS
> *>certified and currently being used as the main battery for the
>
> > *Citation Business Jet.
> rec.aviation.piloting, rec.crafts.metalworking, rec.aviation.military, talk.politics.misc, alt.society.labor-unions
> Is that the one that goes at the speed of sound or one of the straight-
> winged ones?

I was looking at this citation jet crash with its engines actually
still going in the water. I couldn't believe this.

-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1Yf6_MVTck

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| Tiny crystals that can cause lithium-ion batteries to
| short-circuit and fail are among areas under investigation
| in Boeing Co. (BA) 787 fire and smoke incidents, according
| to a U.S. agency conducting the probe.
|
| "It's definitely something we're looking at," Kelly Nantel,
| spokeswoman for the U.S. National Transportation Safety
| Board, said in an interview.
| ...
<http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-11/microscopic-crystals-studied-by-ntsb-in-787-battery-probe>

Official Boeing Statement (dated 12 Feb 2013)
|
| Boeing welcomes the progress reported by the U.S. National
| Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in the 787
| investigation, including that the NTSB has identified the
| origin of the event as having been within the battery. The
| findings discussed demonstrates a narrowing of the focus of
| the investigation to short circuiting observed in the
| battery, while providing the public with a better
| understanding of the nature of the investigation.
|
| The company remains committed to working with the NTSB, the
| U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and our
| customers to maintain the high level of safety the
| traveling public expects and that the air transport system
| has delivered. We continue to provide support to the
| investigative groups as they work to further understand
| these events and as we work to prevent such incidents in
| the future. The safety of passengers and crew members who
| fly aboard Boeing airplanes is our highest priority.
|
| The 787 was certified following a rigorous Boeing test
| program and an extensive certification program conducted by
| the FAA. We provided testing and analysis in support of the
| requirements of the FAA special conditions associated with
| the use of lithium ion batteries. We are working
| collaboratively to address questions about our testing and
| compliance with certification standards, and we will not
| hesitate to make changes that lead to improved testing
| processes and products.
|
<http://www.onlineamd.com/aerospace-787-Boeing-USNTSB-021213.aspx>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

I think we've moved beyond a "minor tweak":
|
| The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Airbus' upcoming
| A350, the company's competitor to Boeing's high-tech 787
| Dreamliner, will drop all use of lithium-ion batteries.
| ...
<http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/14/3990308/airbus-350-reportedly-dropping-lithium-ion-batteries>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Jumping from "minor tweak" to "OMFG!":
|
| Boeing will propose to regulators as early as this week a
| short-term fix to bolster the 787's defenses in case of
| battery fires like those that have kept the jet grounded
| for the past month.
| ...
| The interim fix includes a heavy-duty titanium or steel
| containment box around the battery cells, and high-pressure
| evacuation tubes that, in the event of a battery fire,
| would vent any gases directly to the outside of the jet.
|
| Boeing's approach implicitly acknowledges that four weeks
| after two batteries overheated -- one catching fire on the
| ground, the other smoldering in flight -- investigators
| have still not pinpointed the cause.
| ...
| However, it's unclear if the FAA is ready yet to accept
| containment of an overheated battery cell rather than
| prevention.
| ...
| Brian Barnett, a battery specialist with Mass.-based
| technology development company VIAX who has closely studied
| lithium ion battery failures, said that in his lab's
| experience, about half the time "you cannot reach solid
| conclusions" about the root cause.
| ...
<http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020373450_boeing787xml.html?prmid=4939>

--bks

[Vaughn]

On 1/10/2013 3:02 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
> A Week Boeing Would Like To Forget
> By Alex Zolbert, CNN, updated 2:01 PM EST, Thu January 10, 2013
>
> More concerns for Dreamliner - (CNN) --

A bit of progress...

Japan's transport ministry said it had identified the likely cause of
fuel leaks on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, but is still looking into why
batteries overheated on two occasions, causing the aircraft to be
grounded globally

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323549204578319783013656490.html

Vaughn

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| After meeting with Boeing executives, top federal aviation
| officials said on Friday that they would not approve any
| fix to the battery problems on the 787 jetliner until they
| were certain that the batteries would not fail again.
| ...
| "The safety of the flying public is our top priority and
| we won't allow the 787 to return to commercial service
| until we're confident that any proposed solution has
| addressed the battery failure risks," Laura J. Brown, a
| spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said
| in a statement.
| ...
| The meeting, however, was unlikely to bring about a quick
| lifting of the 787s' grounding order. Boeing is asking the
| F.A.A. to approve the fixes even though safety
| investigators have not figured out precisely what caused
| the battery on one plane to ignite and the battery on
| another to start smoking last month.
| ...
| In that sense, the meeting on Friday was also aimed at
| expanding the company's emphasis from engineering work to
| the political arena.
| ...
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/business/faa-sets-terms-for-boeings-battery-fixes-on-787.html>

--bks

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 07:46:01 +0000, Charlie+ > wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 22:53:02 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
>Sherman) wrote as underneath my scribble :
>
>Thanks for the mini updates here . appreciated. C+
>> |
>> | After meeting with Boeing executives, top federal aviation
>snip
>> --bks
Appartently on at least one plane the APU was miss-wired.

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:08:16 -0500, wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 07:46:01 +0000, Charlie+ > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 22:53:02 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
>>Sherman) wrote as underneath my scribble :
>>
>>Thanks for the mini updates here . appreciated. C+
>>> |
>>> | After meeting with Boeing executives, top federal aviation
>>snip
>>> --bks
> Appartently on at least one plane the APU was miss-wired.

No indication that I've seen (so far) that it was significant to the
problem. Could have been a shield grounded at the wrong end, a
different wire gauge than the drawings or something like that.

[Richard[_8_]]

On 2/25/2013 1:06 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:08:16 -0500, wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 07:46:01 +0000, > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 22:53:02 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
>>> Sherman) wrote as underneath my scribble :
>>>
>>> Thanks for the mini updates here . appreciated. C+
>>>> |
>>>> | After meeting with Boeing executives, top federal aviation
>>> snip
>>>> --bks
>> Appartently on at least one plane the APU was miss-wired.
>
> No indication that I've seen (so far) that it was significant to the
> problem. Could have been a shield grounded at the wrong end, a
> different wire gauge than the drawings or something like that.
>

And it MIGHT have been the battery voltage sense wire.
Why are we guessing at this?

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:49:34 -0600, Richard >
wrote:

>On 2/25/2013 1:06 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:08:16 -0500, wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 07:46:01 +0000, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 22:53:02 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
>>>> Sherman) wrote as underneath my scribble :
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the mini updates here . appreciated. C+
>>>>> |
>>>>> | After meeting with Boeing executives, top federal aviation
>>>> snip
>>>>> --bks
>>> Appartently on at least one plane the APU was miss-wired.
>>
>> No indication that I've seen (so far) that it was significant to the
>> problem. Could have been a shield grounded at the wrong end, a
>> different wire gauge than the drawings or something like that.
>>
>
>And it MIGHT have been the battery voltage sense wire.
>Why are we guessing at this?
Related articles
Q&A: What is the impact of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner safety concerns

Jet problems fail to stall Boeing

Delays with Dreamliners deepen nightmare for Boeing

Dreamliner fault tests focus on damaged battery

Boeing faces vast bill over Dreamliner delivery delay
Ads by Google


Japan's Transport Ministry said that an investigation into the
overheating of a lithium ion battery in an All Nippon Airways (ANA)
Boeing 787 discovered it had been improperly wired.

The Transport Safety Board said that the battery of the aircraft's
auxiliary power unit (APU) was incorrectly connected to the main
battery that overheated.

However, it added that a protective valve would have prevented power
from the APU from doing any damage.

The safety board said that more analysis was needed



Perhaps they should have stated "a protectiive valve SHOULD have
prevented power from the APU from doing any damage"

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| The Federal Aviation Administration says it is not close to
| approving test flights of Boeing Co.'s 787 Dreamliner with
| a proposed Boeing fix for the aircraft's lithium-ion
| batteries.
|
| The agency was responding to a Wall Street Journal report
| Tuesday that federal regulators have been working to give
| Chicago-based Boeing Co. the OK for airborne tests of
| proposed battery fixes as early as next week, though the
| actual test flights aren't likely to come that quickly. The
| newspaper cited unnamed sources familiar with the details.
|
| "Reports that we are close to allowing 787 test flights are
| completely inaccurate," spokeswoman Laura Brown said in an
| email statement to the Chicago Sun-Times Wednesday.
| ...
<http://www.suntimes.com/business/18509916-420/faa-denies-report-that-boeing-787-fix-test-flights-near.html>

--bks

[Richard[_8_]]

This came along a few days ago.
Unverified (like most Internet gossip)
Reputedly form a retired Boeing engineer.
The merge between Boeing and MD did happen - 1997.
But I can't confirm or deny the internal workings.



For one thing the problem may not be with the batteries
themselves, but with the control system that keeps the charge on them at
a given level. And the 'battery problem" is just one problem in many.
Last week I had my regular monthly lunch with 5 fellow Boeing engineers
(all but one retired) and we talked at length about what we call the
"nightmare liner". We all agreed we will not book a flight on one. The
one engineer still working (at age 74) says the news from inside is not
good, and that there are no quick fixes for the multitude of problems
that the 787 has.

The disaster began with the merger with McDonnell-Douglas
in the mid 90s. The M-D people completely took over the Board and
installed their own people. They had no experience with commercial
airplanes, having done only"cost-plus" military contracting; and there
are worlds of difference between military and commercial airplane design.

Alan Mulally, a life-long Boeing guy and President of
Boeing Commercial Division was against outsourcing. But instead of
making him CEO after he almost single-handedly saved the company in the
early 90s, the Board brought in Harry Stonecipher from
McDonnell-Douglas, who was big on outsourcing. Stonecipher was later
fired for ethics violations. Then the Board brought in Jim McNerney, a
glorified scotch tape salesman from 3M and big proponent of outsourcing,
to develop the 787. (Alan Mulally left to become CEO of Ford and
completely rejuvenated that company.)

McNerney and his bean-counting MBAs thought that instead of
developing the 787 in-house for about $11 billion, they could outsource
the design and building of the airplane for about $6 billion. Right now
they are at $23 billion and counting, three year behind in deliveries,
with a grounded fleet. That's typical for military contracting, so
McNerney and the Board probably think they are doing just fine. But it
will destroy Boeing's commercial business in the same way
McDonnell wrecked Douglas when they took over that company
decades ago.

Boeing had a wonderfully experienced team of designers and
builders who had successfully created the 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767,
and 777 in-house, always on-time, and mostly within budget, and with few
problems at introduction. That team is gone, either retired or employed
elsewhere. (I took early retirement after the McD takeover of Boeing
because I knew the new upper management team was clueless.)

The 787 was designed in Russia, India, Japan, and Italy.
The majority of the airplane is built outside the
US in parts and shipped to Seattle or Charleston for assembly.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong? Answer: just about
everything. Because the M-D people that now run Boeing don't believe in
R&D, the structure of the airplane will be tested “in service.”

Commercial airplanes in their lifetime typically make ten
times as many flights and fly ten times as many flight hours as military
airplanes, so the argument that composite structure has been "tested"
because of the experience of composite military airplanes is just so
much BS. So structure is a big issue. The 787 is very overweight. The
all-electric controls have the same lack-of-experience issue that the
structure has.

The good news for me is that the Boeing pension plan is
currently fully funded, although it may not stay that way as the 787
catastrophe develops.

[Vaughn]

On 2/27/2013 2:52 PM, Richard wrote:
> the structure of the airplane will be tested “in service.”

You could say that the structure of every totally new airliner is tested
"in service". The manufacturer can only afford to build a handful of
conforming prototypes. When the first examples of the plane start
carrying passengers, those prototypes are still very young and have low
hours (by airline standards.)

At least it's now possible for every part on the plane to have it's own
computer structural analysis.

Vaughn

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| Boeing Co. and the Japanese company that makes lithium-ion
| batteries for Boeing's 787 Dreamliner are at odds over what
| should be included in the final package of fixes intended
| to get the jets back in the air, according to government
| and industry officials familiar with the details.
|
| GS Yuasa Corp. has told the Federal Aviation Administration
| that while it supports engineering and design changes
| Boeing has proposed to try to end the six-week-old
| grounding of 787s, it believes the proposed package is
| inadequate to mitigate all potential 787 battery hazards,
| the officials said.
| ...
| Yuasa's primary argument, according to the officials, was
| that its own laboratory tests strongly suggest that an
| external power surge--or another problem originating
| outside the eight cells of the battery--kicked off the
| sequence of events on the 787s that experienced burning
| batteries. Yuasa told the FAA that temperatures and current
| fluctuations recorded on those planes weren't consistent
| with short-circuits originating inside its batteries.
|
| As a result, Yuasa is urging the FAA to require
| installation of a sophisticated voltage regulator intended
| to prevent current from flowing into 787 batteries at the
| first sign of a problem. Boeing's package of proposed
| battery enhancements doesn't add such a feature to existing
| safeguards, people familiar with it say. Boeing is arguing
| that its overall package--which includes sturdier and
| better separated cells and a new fireproof container around
| the batteries--is adequate to prevent any internal or
| external malfunctions from causing fire or smoke.
| ...
| In congressional testimony Wednesday, FAA chief Michael
| Huerta said he expects to receive an internal agency report
| on the proposed fixes next week, but he didn't indicate
| when he expects to act on them.
| ...
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323293704578330480004073900.html>

--bks

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 02:51:15 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

> |
> | Boeing Co. and the Japanese company that makes lithium-ion
> | batteries for Boeing's 787 Dreamliner are at odds over what
> | should be included in the final package of fixes intended
> | to get the jets back in the air, according to government
> | and industry officials familiar with the details.
> |
> | GS Yuasa Corp. has told the Federal Aviation Administration
> | that while it supports engineering and design changes
> | Boeing has proposed to try to end the six-week-old
> | grounding of 787s, it believes the proposed package is
> | inadequate to mitigate all potential 787 battery hazards,
> | the officials said.
> | ...
> | Yuasa's primary argument, according to the officials, was
> | that its own laboratory tests strongly suggest that an
> | external power surge--or another problem originating
> | outside the eight cells of the battery--kicked off the
> | sequence of events on the 787s that experienced burning
> | batteries. Yuasa told the FAA that temperatures and current
> | fluctuations recorded on those planes weren't consistent
> | with short-circuits originating inside its batteries.
> |
> | As a result, Yuasa is urging the FAA to require
> | installation of a sophisticated voltage regulator intended
> | to prevent current from flowing into 787 batteries at the
> | first sign of a problem. Boeing's package of proposed
> | battery enhancements doesn't add such a feature to existing
> | safeguards, people familiar with it say. Boeing is arguing
> | that its overall package--which includes sturdier and
> | better separated cells and a new fireproof container around
> | the batteries--is adequate to prevent any internal or
> | external malfunctions from causing fire or smoke.
> | ...
> | In congressional testimony Wednesday, FAA chief Michael
> | Huerta said he expects to receive an internal agency report
> | on the proposed fixes next week, but he didn't indicate
> | when he expects to act on them.
> | ...
><http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323293704578330480004073900.html>
>
> --bks
Typical McDonnell Douglas military thinking - don't avoid (solve) the
problem, contain (hide) it.

They have not found the cause of the problem yet. SOMETHING caused
the batteries to overheat. I'm still betting it's outside the battery
system itself. The Dreamliner is a hodgepodge of outsourced
assemblies designed by third world engineers - which in itself is not
necessarily a problem - but the whole final product needs better than
average engineers to make sure all the subassemblied are designed to
work with each other - and to ensure that the thing is properly
assembled. I still think the battery pack itself is OK. I also think
the APU is OK - but I strongly supect there is an issue with the
interface between the two. An issue which, when it is finally found,
will, in hindsight, be just a "minor tweek" in the grand scheme of
things.

[Ramsman]

On 03/02/2013 03:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
>> down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
>> off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
>> awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
>> IRRC
>
> Turbojet, but maybe this one?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
>
> They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
> square windows in the early models.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Spehro Pefhany
>

It wasn't the fuselage windows for the passengers that caused the
problem (at least for G-ALYP), it was the ADF window in the roof. The
passenger windows did fail in the tank test though. The stresses at the
corners turned out to be higher then de Havilland's engineers had suspected.
http://www.oocities.org/capecanaveral/lab/8803/fcogalyp.htm#yy
--
Peter

[Transition Zone]

On Mar 1, 4:06*am, Ramsman > wrote:
> On 03/02/2013 03:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
> > > wrote:
>
> >> Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
> >> down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
> >> off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
> >> awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
> >> IRRC
>
> > Turbojet, but maybe this one?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
>
> > They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
> > square windows in the early models.
>
> > Best regards,
> > Spehro Pefhany
>
> It wasn't the fuselage windows for the passengers that caused the
> problem (at least for G-ALYP), it was the ADF window in the roof. The
> passenger windows did fail in the tank test though. The stresses at the
> corners turned out to be higher then de Havilland's engineers had suspected.http://www.oocities.org/capecanaveral/lab/8803/fcogalyp.htm#yy

I see they later made the naval versions with fewer windows. Renamed
as an MR.2P, one was shown crashing into a lake near Toronto 10 or so
years ago.

-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o6PitZEmMI

[Richard[_8_]]

On 3/1/2013 11:02 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
> On Mar 1, 4:06 am, > wrote:
>> On 03/02/2013 03:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
>>>> down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
>>>> off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
>>>> awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
>>>> IRRC
>>
>>> Turbojet, but maybe this one?
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
>>
>>> They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
>>> square windows in the early models.
>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Spehro Pefhany
>>
>> It wasn't the fuselage windows for the passengers that caused the
>> problem (at least for G-ALYP), it was the ADF window in the roof. The
>> passenger windows did fail in the tank test though. The stresses at the
>> corners turned out to be higher then de Havilland's engineers had suspected.http://www.oocities.org/capecanaveral/lab/8803/fcogalyp.htm#yy
>
> I see they later made the naval versions with fewer windows. Renamed
> as an MR.2P, one was shown crashing into a lake near Toronto 10 or so
> years ago.
>
> -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o6PitZEmMI


This aircraft has been flying since 1967, and has given excellent
service.

But you post a fatal crash video you found on the first page of google
returns.

Bah!

[Transition Zone]

On Mar 1, 12:08*pm, Richard > wrote:
> On 3/1/2013 11:02 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 4:06 am, > *wrote:
> >> On 03/02/2013 03:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
> >>> > *wrote:
>
> >>>> Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
> >>>> down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
> >>>> off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
> >>>> awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
> >>>> IRRC
>
> >>> Turbojet, but maybe this one?
>
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
>
> >>> They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
> >>> square windows in the early models.
>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Spehro Pefhany
>
> >> It wasn't the fuselage windows for the passengers that caused the
> >> problem (at least for G-ALYP), it was the ADF window in the roof. The
> >> passenger windows did fail in the tank test though. The stresses at the
> >> corners turned out to be higher then de Havilland's engineers had suspected.http://www.oocities.org/capecanaveral/lab/8803/fcogalyp.htm#yy
>
> > I see they later made the naval versions with fewer windows. *Renamed
> > as an MR.2P, one was shown crashing into a lake near Toronto 10 or so
> > years ago.
>
> > --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o6PitZEmMI
>
> This aircraft has been flying since 1967, and has given excellent
> service.
>
> But you post a fatal crash video you found on the first page of
google
>returns.
>
> Bah!

Right, thanks for that. That aircraft is supposed to scour the water
for enemy craft. That is its specialty. So crashing in a friendly
lake full of civilians on a bright sunny day isn't exactly the first
think you'd expect from that "service".

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 12:16:30 -0800 (PST), Transition Zone
> wrote:

>On Mar 1, 12:08*pm, Richard > wrote:
>> On 3/1/2013 11:02 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 1, 4:06 am, > *wrote:
>> >> On 03/02/2013 03:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
>> >>> > *wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
>> >>>> down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
>> >>>> off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
>> >>>> awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
>> >>>> IRRC
>>
>> >>> Turbojet, but maybe this one?
>>
>> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
>>
>> >>> They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
>> >>> square windows in the early models.
>>
>> >>> Best regards,
>> >>> Spehro Pefhany
>>
>> >> It wasn't the fuselage windows for the passengers that caused the
>> >> problem (at least for G-ALYP), it was the ADF window in the roof. The
>> >> passenger windows did fail in the tank test though. The stresses at the
>> >> corners turned out to be higher then de Havilland's engineers had suspected.http://www.oocities.org/capecanaveral/lab/8803/fcogalyp.htm#yy
>>
>> > I see they later made the naval versions with fewer windows. *Renamed
>> > as an MR.2P, one was shown crashing into a lake near Toronto 10 or so
>> > years ago.
>>
>> > --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o6PitZEmMI
>>
>> This aircraft has been flying since 1967, and has given excellent
>> service.
>>
> > But you post a fatal crash video you found on the first page of
>google
>>returns.
>>
>> Bah!
>
>Right, thanks for that. That aircraft is supposed to scour the water
>for enemy craft. That is its specialty. So crashing in a friendly
>lake full of civilians on a bright sunny day isn't exactly the first
>think you'd expect from that "service".
It was an "air show" - the MOST dangerous aviation activity, short
of all-out war.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

NTSB update, 11 am Eastern, Thursday:
|
| The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will issue
| an interim report Thursday on the lithium ion battery fire
| in January aboard a parked Boeing 787 Dreamliner at Logan
| Airport in Boston.
| ...
| The NTSB has been trying to establish what caused the short
| circuit, but experts have expressed doubt whether that will
| ever be known for sure, given the level of damage to the
| battery.
|
| There's no indication that the interim report will provide
| an answer, though it may make clearer whether or not a
| definitive cause is likely to be identified later.
|
| The report is "factual in nature and does not provide any
| analysis," the NTSB said in a statement Wednesday.
| ...
| Boeing has proposed a fix for the battery problem -- which,
| in the absence of a known root cause, attempts to address
| all possible battery system malfunctions. The company is
| awaiting approval from the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA)
| to implement that fix.
|
| The FAA is expected to give its initial response late this
| week or early next.
|
<http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020500473_ntsb787xml.html>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| (Reuters) - U.S. safety regulators are poised to approve
| within days a plan to allow Boeing to begin flight tests of
| the 787 Dreamliner with a fix for its volatile batteries, a
| critical step towards returning the grounded aircraft to
| service, two sources familiar with the matter said on
| Wednesday.
|
| The Federal Aviation Administration is expected to sign off
| on a "certification plan" allowing Boeing to carry out the
| flight tests to determine if authorities can lift a flight
| ban that sent shockwaves around the airline industry seven
| weeks ago.
| ...
| Aboulafia estimated that it would take at least four months
| for the 787 to get cleared to fly if the FAA approves
| flight tests soon. If flight testing approval takes longer,
| it could take six to nine months before the 787 is back in
| the sky.
| ...
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/07/boeing-faa-idUSL1N0BYK8Y20130307>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

NTSB Has nothing, nada, zilch:
|
| (Reuters) - The National Transportation Safety Board is
| examining the certification and testing of the lithium-ion
| battery system on the Boeing Co 787, the NTSB said on
| Thursday.
|
| The NTSB's "interim factual report" on a January battery
| fire in Boston did not include any conclusions about the
| cause of the fire, which contributed to the plane's
| grounding by regulators.
|
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/07/boeing-dreamliner-ntsb-idUSWEN0083S20130307>

Here's what NTSB released (warning, 500 pages):
<http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hitlist.cfm?docketID=54251&CFID=2871&CFTOKEN=67900912>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

| ...
| * Boeing outsourced both the analysis and testing of the
| battery system's safety to its subcontractor, Thales of
| France, and to the battery maker, GS Yuasa of Japan.
| ...
| * Testing of the battery charging unit (BCU) system was
| done by a Thales sub-contractor, Securaplane of Tucson,
| Ariz.
|
| Early developmental testing of this system resulted in a
| major battery fire in 2006 that burned down a Securaplane
| building. After this, actual batteries were used only for
| isolated tests, with most of the testing instead using
| equipment that provided an electrical load representative
| of what a battery would provide.
|
| The NTSB notes that there doesn't seem to have been any
| testing of the charging system and battery together as an
| integrated system inside the airplane.
| ...
<http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020505762_ntsb787reportxml.html>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

?:
|
| NEW YORK - The stock market crept higher Monday, pushing
| the Dow Jones industrial average to its seventh straight
| day of gains.
|
| Boeing was the Dow's top stock, surging 2 percent. A Boeing
| executive reportedly said he's confident the aircraft maker
| has figured out a fix for the battery problems that have
| grounded the 787 Dreamliner.
| ...
<http://www.dailymail.com/Business/201303110163>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

FAA Press Release:
|
| WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Federal Aviation Administration
|
| (FAA) today approved the Boeing Commercial Airplane
| Company's certification plan for the redesigned 787 battery
| system, after thoroughly reviewing Boeing's proposed
| modifications and the company's plan to demonstrate that
| the system will meet FAA requirements. The certification
| plan is the first step in the process to evaluate the 787's
| return to flight and requires Boeing to conduct extensive
| testing and analysis to demonstrate compliance with the
| applicable safety regulations and special conditions.
| ...
| The FAA will approve the redesign only if the company
| successfully completes all required tests and analysis to
| demonstrate the new design complies with FAA requirements.
| The FAA's January 16, 2013 airworthiness directive, which
| required operators to temporarily cease 787 operations, is
| still in effect, and the FAA is continuing its
| comprehensive review of the 787 design, production and
| manufacturing process.
|
<http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=14394>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

There will be a live Boeing technical briefing about the 787 "fix"
webcast from Tokyo, Thursday 14 March, 6 pm Pacific:
<http://787updates.newairplane.com/Certification/Webcast>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Who are you gonna believe, Boeing or your own lying eyes?
|
| Boeing Co. (BA)'s assertion that U.S. investigators ruled
| out a fire within the battery case of a Japan Airlines Co.
| (9201) 787 is premature, a National Transportation Safety
| Board spokesman said.
|
| Investigators examining the Jan. 7 fire aboard the
| Dreamliner in Boston haven't ruled out that flames erupted
| within the lithium-ion battery container, Peter Knudson
| said today in response to questions about the issue.
| ...
| Michael Sinnett, Boeing's chief project engineer, said in
| the briefing that investigators hadn't found evidence of
| flames within the Boston battery's container box, an
| indication it worked as designed to limit damage from a
| battery failure.
|
| A witness who tried to fight the Jan. 7 fire said he saw 3-
| inch (7.6-centimeter) flames outside the lithium-ion
| battery, and the NTSB has found evidence of high
| temperatures within battery cells that failed, according to
| preliminary safety-board documents released March 7.
| ...
<http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-15/ntsb-contradicts-boeing-claim-of-no-fire-in-787-battery>

--bks

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:00:07 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

>Who are you gonna believe, Boeing or your own lying eyes?
> |
> | Boeing Co. (BA)'s assertion that U.S. investigators ruled
> | out a fire within the battery case of a Japan Airlines Co.
> | (9201) 787 is premature, a National Transportation Safety
> | Board spokesman said.
> |
> | Investigators examining the Jan. 7 fire aboard the
> | Dreamliner in Boston haven't ruled out that flames erupted
> | within the lithium-ion battery container, Peter Knudson
> | said today in response to questions about the issue.
> | ...
> | Michael Sinnett, Boeing's chief project engineer, said in
> | the briefing that investigators hadn't found evidence of
> | flames within the Boston battery's container box, an
> | indication it worked as designed to limit damage from a
> | battery failure.
> |
> | A witness who tried to fight the Jan. 7 fire said he saw 3-
> | inch (7.6-centimeter) flames outside the lithium-ion
> | battery, and the NTSB has found evidence of high
> | temperatures within battery cells that failed, according to
> | preliminary safety-board documents released March 7.
> | ...
><http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-15/ntsb-contradicts-boeing-claim-of-no-fire-in-787-battery>
>
> --bks

Gawd ... is THIS thread still going on ???????????/

Yes, the 787 is a failure.

Put it this way ... after hearing about its problems *I* will
NEVER fly on one - ever.

And I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.

Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....

[Daryl[_2_]]

On 3/22/2013 12:55 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:00:07 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
> Sherman) wrote:
>
>> Who are you gonna believe, Boeing or your own lying eyes?
>> |
>> | Boeing Co. (BA)'s assertion that U.S. investigators ruled
>> | out a fire within the battery case of a Japan Airlines Co.
>> | (9201) 787 is premature, a National Transportation Safety
>> | Board spokesman said.
>> |
>> | Investigators examining the Jan. 7 fire aboard the
>> | Dreamliner in Boston haven't ruled out that flames erupted
>> | within the lithium-ion battery container, Peter Knudson
>> | said today in response to questions about the issue.
>> | ...
>> | Michael Sinnett, Boeing's chief project engineer, said in
>> | the briefing that investigators hadn't found evidence of
>> | flames within the Boston battery's container box, an
>> | indication it worked as designed to limit damage from a
>> | battery failure.
>> |
>> | A witness who tried to fight the Jan. 7 fire said he saw 3-
>> | inch (7.6-centimeter) flames outside the lithium-ion
>> | battery, and the NTSB has found evidence of high
>> | temperatures within battery cells that failed, according to
>> | preliminary safety-board documents released March 7.
>> | ...
>> <http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-15/ntsb-contradicts-boeing-claim-of-no-fire-in-787-battery>
>>
>> --bks
>
> Gawd ... is THIS thread still going on ???????????/
>
> Yes, the 787 is a failure.
>
> Put it this way ... after hearing about its problems *I* will
> NEVER fly on one - ever.
>
> And I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.
>
> Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....
>

The conventional Batteries are sometimes called Sealed Lead Acid
Batteries but they are actually AGM batteries. Less time between
replacements, requires a heated and cooled area but is the most
dependable. If that is all that is keeping the 787 from flying, it's a
pretty simple fix.

Daryl

[Keith W[_4_]]

Daryl wrote:
> On 3/22/2013 12:55 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:00:07 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
>> Sherman) wrote:
>>
>>> Who are you gonna believe, Boeing or your own lying eyes?
>>>>
>>>> Boeing Co. (BA)'s assertion that U.S. investigators ruled
>>>> out a fire within the battery case of a Japan Airlines Co.
>>>> (9201) 787 is premature, a National Transportation Safety
>>>> Board spokesman said.
>>>>
>>>> Investigators examining the Jan. 7 fire aboard the
>>>> Dreamliner in Boston haven't ruled out that flames erupted
>>>> within the lithium-ion battery container, Peter Knudson
>>>> said today in response to questions about the issue.
>>>> ...
>>>> Michael Sinnett, Boeing's chief project engineer, said in
>>>> the briefing that investigators hadn't found evidence of
>>>> flames within the Boston battery's container box, an
>>>> indication it worked as designed to limit damage from a
>>>> battery failure.
>>>>
>>>> A witness who tried to fight the Jan. 7 fire said he saw 3-
>>>> inch (7.6-centimeter) flames outside the lithium-ion
>>>> battery, and the NTSB has found evidence of high
>>>> temperatures within battery cells that failed, according to
>>>> preliminary safety-board documents released March 7.
>>>> ...
>>> <http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-15/ntsb-contradicts-boeing-claim-of-no-fire-in-787-battery>
>>>
>>> --bks
>>
>> Gawd ... is THIS thread still going on ???????????/
>>
>> Yes, the 787 is a failure.
>>
>> Put it this way ... after hearing about its problems *I* will
>> NEVER fly on one - ever.
>>
>> And I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.
>>
>> Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....
>>
>
> The conventional Batteries are sometimes called Sealed Lead Acid
> Batteries but they are actually AGM batteries.

Modern passenger aircraft normally use Nickel Cadmium batteries

> Less time between
> replacements, requires a heated and cooled area but is the most
> dependable. If that is all that is keeping the 787 from flying, it's
> a pretty simple fix.
>

Not necessarily as that may need recertification which is a complex and
lengthy since the batteries would be heavier and take up more
space.

Keith

[Daryl[_2_]]

On 3/22/2013 3:23 AM, Keith W wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 3/22/2013 12:55 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:00:07 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
>>> Sherman) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Who are you gonna believe, Boeing or your own lying eyes?
>>>>>
>>>>> Boeing Co. (BA)'s assertion that U.S. investigators ruled
>>>>> out a fire within the battery case of a Japan Airlines Co.
>>>>> (9201) 787 is premature, a National Transportation Safety
>>>>> Board spokesman said.
>>>>>
>>>>> Investigators examining the Jan. 7 fire aboard the
>>>>> Dreamliner in Boston haven't ruled out that flames erupted
>>>>> within the lithium-ion battery container, Peter Knudson
>>>>> said today in response to questions about the issue.
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Michael Sinnett, Boeing's chief project engineer, said in
>>>>> the briefing that investigators hadn't found evidence of
>>>>> flames within the Boston battery's container box, an
>>>>> indication it worked as designed to limit damage from a
>>>>> battery failure.
>>>>>
>>>>> A witness who tried to fight the Jan. 7 fire said he saw 3-
>>>>> inch (7.6-centimeter) flames outside the lithium-ion
>>>>> battery, and the NTSB has found evidence of high
>>>>> temperatures within battery cells that failed, according to
>>>>> preliminary safety-board documents released March 7.
>>>>> ...
>>>> <http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-15/ntsb-contradicts-boeing-claim-of-no-fire-in-787-battery>
>>>>
>>>> --bks
>>>
>>> Gawd ... is THIS thread still going on ???????????/
>>>
>>> Yes, the 787 is a failure.
>>>
>>> Put it this way ... after hearing about its problems *I* will
>>> NEVER fly on one - ever.
>>>
>>> And I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.
>>>
>>> Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....
>>>
>>
>> The conventional Batteries are sometimes called Sealed Lead Acid
>> Batteries but they are actually AGM batteries.
>
> Modern passenger aircraft normally use Nickel Cadmium batteries

Which are prone to a lot of problems. And it's old tech. Now for the
real negatives. If you overcharge them, they overheat. If you let them
go down below 20% they will need to be taken out and charged very, very
slowly with a special charger. They are very susceptible to temperature
ranges. They are the heaviest of the Non Lead Acid batteries, their
life span is almost equal to the sealed lead acid if you don't count the
fact they damage easy. The cost is more than the AGM.

The AGM is just now finding it's way into the aircraft industry. Of
course, it has been somewhat over looked because of the Lithiums. But
it appears that small aircraft that are worried about initial building
costs are not overlooking them.

What they are looking at is the replacement hours on the Lithiums. They
start out at 800 charges and go to 2000 charges depending on the type of
Lithium. The weights in comparison to the AGM is anywhere 3 times to 5
times lighter. But the cost is at least 5 times the cost.


>
>> Less time between
>> replacements, requires a heated and cooled area but is the most
>> dependable. If that is all that is keeping the 787 from flying, it's
>> a pretty simple fix.
>>
>
> Not necessarily as that may need recertification which is a complex and
> lengthy since the batteries would be heavier and take up more
> space.

They are going to have to be re certified anyway. The AGM isn't that
much larger and it's pretty well proven in the Electric Vehicles to day.
IT does the job if you keep it over 50% just like clockwork and can
last at least 2 to 5 years without going below 50% charge if you keep
them above freezing and below 100 degrees (the same as the Lithiums). I
use AGMs on a daily basis and my battery provider says I am the hardest
on batteries he's ever seen. I am getting ready to do another build
that uses the heavier Deep Cell which is designed to put up with my
punishement. But the AGMs are more rugged than the Lithiums that I also
use.

Nacads also work but for about one run into town before they overheat.
Ever seen a Nacad blow up? IT's pretty anticlimatic. They burst and
make a mess out of everything around it. And it's caustic. Same goes
for a Lithium except they will go into flame and feed the flame until
all the liquid is used up. I have never had a case break open on an
AGM. I've crashed em, dump em, drop em, used them for Rocky Mountain
Offroad, and more.

I can see that the Deep Cell Sealed Lead Acid should be as tough and
have a longer run time but they are twice as heavy. The lifespan of the
Deep Cell the way I use batteries should be as high as the Lithium and
cost less. But the weight means only my 3 wheelers will use them. They
just don't make 10 to 15 amp deep cells. But they do make a very solid
35 amp at twice the weight and size of a 12 amp AGM.

I am just not sold on Lithiums and I am certainly not sold on Nicads.
The Airline Aircraft Industry can use the AGMS and have less problems,
almost the same run time as the lower Lithium Mag batteries and save a
bunch of money.

Daryl

[GunnerAsch]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:23:17 -0000, "Keith W"
> wrote:

>>
>> The conventional Batteries are sometimes called Sealed Lead Acid
>> Batteries but they are actually AGM batteries.
>
>Modern passenger aircraft normally use Nickel Cadmium batteries

Why havent they converted over to NmH?

[Keith W[_4_]]

Daryl wrote:
> On 3/22/2013 3:23 AM, Keith W wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2013 12:55 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:00:07 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
>>>> Sherman) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Who are you gonna believe, Boeing or your own lying eyes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Boeing Co. (BA)'s assertion that U.S. investigators ruled
>>>>>> out a fire within the battery case of a Japan Airlines Co.
>>>>>> (9201) 787 is premature, a National Transportation Safety
>>>>>> Board spokesman said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Investigators examining the Jan. 7 fire aboard the
>>>>>> Dreamliner in Boston haven't ruled out that flames erupted
>>>>>> within the lithium-ion battery container, Peter Knudson
>>>>>> said today in response to questions about the issue.
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Michael Sinnett, Boeing's chief project engineer, said in
>>>>>> the briefing that investigators hadn't found evidence of
>>>>>> flames within the Boston battery's container box, an
>>>>>> indication it worked as designed to limit damage from a
>>>>>> battery failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A witness who tried to fight the Jan. 7 fire said he saw 3-
>>>>>> inch (7.6-centimeter) flames outside the lithium-ion
>>>>>> battery, and the NTSB has found evidence of high
>>>>>> temperatures within battery cells that failed, according to
>>>>>> preliminary safety-board documents released March 7.
>>>>>> ...
>>>>> <http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-15/ntsb-contradicts-boeing-claim-of-no-fire-in-787-battery>
>>>>>
>>>>> --bks
>>>>
>>>> Gawd ... is THIS thread still going on ???????????/
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the 787 is a failure.
>>>>
>>>> Put it this way ... after hearing about its problems *I* will
>>>> NEVER fly on one - ever.
>>>>
>>>> And I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.
>>>>
>>>> Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....
>>>>
>>>
>>> The conventional Batteries are sometimes called Sealed Lead Acid
>>> Batteries but they are actually AGM batteries.
>>
>> Modern passenger aircraft normally use Nickel Cadmium batteries
>
> Which are prone to a lot of problems. And it's old tech. Now for the
> real negatives. If you overcharge them, they overheat. If you let
> them go down below 20% they will need to be taken out and charged
> very, very slowly with a special charger. They are very susceptible
> to temperature ranges. They are the heaviest of the Non Lead Acid
> batteries, their life span is almost equal to the sealed lead acid if
> you don't count the fact they damage easy. The cost is more than the
> AGM.
> The AGM is just now finding it's way into the aircraft industry. Of
> course, it has been somewhat over looked because of the Lithiums. But
> it appears that small aircraft that are worried about initial building
> costs are not overlooking them.
>
> What they are looking at is the replacement hours on the Lithiums. They
> start out at 800 charges and go to 2000 charges depending on the
> type of Lithium. The weights in comparison to the AGM is anywhere 3
> times to 5 times lighter. But the cost is at least 5 times the cost.
>
>
>>
>>> Less time between
>>> replacements, requires a heated and cooled area but is the most
>>> dependable. If that is all that is keeping the 787 from flying,
>>> it's a pretty simple fix.
>>>
>>
>> Not necessarily as that may need recertification which is a complex
>> and lengthy since the batteries would be heavier and take up more
>> space.
>
> They are going to have to be re certified anyway. The AGM isn't that
> much larger and it's pretty well proven in the Electric Vehicles to
> day.

Most electrical vehicles do not use AGM's, their energy density is
too low as is their charge rate

examples
Toyota Prius - NiMH batteries
Nissan Leaf - Lithium ion batteries
Chevvy Volt - Lithium ion batteries
Tesla - Lithium ion batteries
Fisker - Lithium ion batteries
VW Electric - Lithium ion batteries
Renault - Lithium ion batteries


Battery energy density MJ per kilogram

Lithium-ion battery 0.720
Alkaline battery 0.671
Nickel-metal 0.28
Lead-acid battery 0.17

> IT does the job if you keep it over 50% just like clockwork and
> can last at least 2 to 5 years without going below 50% charge if you
> keep them above freezing and below 100 degrees (the same as the
> Lithiums). I use AGMs on a daily basis and my battery provider says
> I am the hardest on batteries he's ever seen. I am getting ready to
> do another build that uses the heavier Deep Cell which is designed to
> put up with my punishement. But the AGMs are more rugged than the
> Lithiums that I also use.
>
> Nacads also work but for about one run into town before they overheat.
> Ever seen a Nacad blow up? IT's pretty anticlimatic. They burst and
> make a mess out of everything around it. And it's caustic. Same goes
> for a Lithium except they will go into flame and feed the flame until
> all the liquid is used up. I have never had a case break open on an
> AGM. I've crashed em, dump em, drop em, used them for Rocky Mountain
> Offroad, and more.
>
> I can see that the Deep Cell Sealed Lead Acid should be as tough and
> have a longer run time but they are twice as heavy.

Which is something of a problem for aircraft

> The lifespan of
> the Deep Cell the way I use batteries should be as high as the
> Lithium and cost less. But the weight means only my 3 wheelers will
> use them. They just don't make 10 to 15 amp deep cells. But they do
> make a very solid 35 amp at twice the weight and size of a 12 amp AGM.
>
> I am just not sold on Lithiums and I am certainly not sold on Nicads.
> The Airline Aircraft Industry can use the AGMS and have less problems,
> almost the same run time as the lower Lithium Mag batteries and save a
> bunch of money.
>

Airbus use NiCads ,the Boeing 737, 747 (pre-800) and 777 use NiCads , they
disagree
with you.

Keith

[Keith W[_4_]]

GunnerAsch wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:23:17 -0000, "Keith W"
> > wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The conventional Batteries are sometimes called Sealed Lead Acid
>>> Batteries but they are actually AGM batteries.
>>
>> Modern passenger aircraft normally use Nickel Cadmium batteries
>
> Why havent they converted over to NmH?

They have a relatively high self discharge rate and can lose
up to 20% of the energy stored in the first 24 hours. This is
acceptable for hybrid vehicles where the battery is primarily a
temporary buffer to capture the energy from regenerative
braking but not good for a system intended to initiate an
aircraft startup sequence after a week in the hangar.

Keith

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Mr. B1ack" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....
>
Better to fall into the South Atlantic because the Airbust didn't
inform the pilots that it had stalled.

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Daryl" > wrote in message
...
> ...I have never had a case break open on an AGM. Daryl

Then you haven't looked very hard.

http://nissandiesel.dyndns.org/viewtopic.php?t=2891&sid=3ca452f8fb4f5bc1b80260ab112d039d
"Problem: APC UPSs sometimes have a float charge voltage that is too
high and tends to cook batteries. Here's a pair of gel/AGM batteries
from a SUA1000 (not an XL) that have swollen so badly that I had to
disassemble the case and pry the batteries out of the metal cage: "

[Transition Zone]

On Mar 22, 2:55*am, Mr. B1ack > wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:00:07 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sherman) wrote:
> >Who are you gonna believe, Boeing or your own lying eyes?
> > |
> > | Boeing Co. (BA)'s assertion that U.S. investigators ruled
> > | out a fire within the battery case of a Japan Airlines Co.
> > | (9201) 787 is premature, a National Transportation Safety
> > | Board spokesman said.
> > |
> > | Investigators examining the Jan. 7 fire aboard the
> > | Dreamliner in Boston haven't ruled out that flames erupted
> > | within the lithium-ion battery container, Peter Knudson
> > | said today in response to questions about the issue.
> > | ...
> > | Michael Sinnett, Boeing's chief project engineer, said in
> > | the briefing that investigators hadn't found evidence of
> > | flames within the Boston battery's container box, an
> > | indication it worked as designed to limit damage from a
> > | battery failure.
> > |
> > | A witness who tried to fight the Jan. 7 fire said he saw 3-
> > | inch (7.6-centimeter) flames outside the lithium-ion
> > | battery, and the NTSB has found evidence of high
> > | temperatures within battery cells that failed, according to
> > | preliminary safety-board documents released March 7.
> > | ...
> ><http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-15/ntsb-contradicts-boeing-c....>
>
> > * *--bks
>
> * *Gawd ... is THIS thread still going on ???????????/
>
> * *Yes, the 787 is a failure.
>
> * *Put it this way ... after hearing about its problems *I* will
> *NEVER fly on one - ever.

I would. Almost every other model airplane has crashed except the
787. Technically, its one of the safest.

> And I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.
>
>Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....

You won't keep shareholders happy that way !!

[Daryl[_2_]]

On 3/22/2013 6:09 AM, Keith W wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 3/22/2013 3:23 AM, Keith W wrote:
>>> Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2013 12:55 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:00:07 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Who are you gonna believe, Boeing or your own lying eyes?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Boeing Co. (BA)'s assertion that U.S. investigators ruled
>>>>>>> out a fire within the battery case of a Japan Airlines Co.
>>>>>>> (9201) 787 is premature, a National Transportation Safety
>>>>>>> Board spokesman said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Investigators examining the Jan. 7 fire aboard the
>>>>>>> Dreamliner in Boston haven't ruled out that flames erupted
>>>>>>> within the lithium-ion battery container, Peter Knudson
>>>>>>> said today in response to questions about the issue.
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Michael Sinnett, Boeing's chief project engineer, said in
>>>>>>> the briefing that investigators hadn't found evidence of
>>>>>>> flames within the Boston battery's container box, an
>>>>>>> indication it worked as designed to limit damage from a
>>>>>>> battery failure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A witness who tried to fight the Jan. 7 fire said he saw 3-
>>>>>>> inch (7.6-centimeter) flames outside the lithium-ion
>>>>>>> battery, and the NTSB has found evidence of high
>>>>>>> temperatures within battery cells that failed, according to
>>>>>>> preliminary safety-board documents released March 7.
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> <http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-15/ntsb-contradicts-boeing-claim-of-no-fire-in-787-battery>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --bks
>>>>>
>>>>> Gawd ... is THIS thread still going on ???????????/
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the 787 is a failure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Put it this way ... after hearing about its problems *I* will
>>>>> NEVER fly on one - ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The conventional Batteries are sometimes called Sealed Lead Acid
>>>> Batteries but they are actually AGM batteries.
>>>
>>> Modern passenger aircraft normally use Nickel Cadmium batteries
>>
>> Which are prone to a lot of problems. And it's old tech. Now for the
>> real negatives. If you overcharge them, they overheat. If you let
>> them go down below 20% they will need to be taken out and charged
>> very, very slowly with a special charger. They are very susceptible
>> to temperature ranges. They are the heaviest of the Non Lead Acid
>> batteries, their life span is almost equal to the sealed lead acid if
>> you don't count the fact they damage easy. The cost is more than the
>> AGM.
>> The AGM is just now finding it's way into the aircraft industry. Of
>> course, it has been somewhat over looked because of the Lithiums. But
>> it appears that small aircraft that are worried about initial building
>> costs are not overlooking them.
>>
>> What they are looking at is the replacement hours on the Lithiums. They
>> start out at 800 charges and go to 2000 charges depending on the
>> type of Lithium. The weights in comparison to the AGM is anywhere 3
>> times to 5 times lighter. But the cost is at least 5 times the cost.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Less time between
>>>> replacements, requires a heated and cooled area but is the most
>>>> dependable. If that is all that is keeping the 787 from flying,
>>>> it's a pretty simple fix.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not necessarily as that may need recertification which is a complex
>>> and lengthy since the batteries would be heavier and take up more
>>> space.
>>
>> They are going to have to be re certified anyway. The AGM isn't that
>> much larger and it's pretty well proven in the Electric Vehicles to
>> day.
>
> Most electrical vehicles do not use AGM's, their energy density is
> too low as is their charge rate
>
> examples
> Toyota Prius - NiMH batteries
> Nissan Leaf - Lithium ion batteries
> Chevvy Volt - Lithium ion batteries
> Tesla - Lithium ion batteries
> Fisker - Lithium ion batteries
> VW Electric - Lithium ion batteries
> Renault - Lithium ion batteries
>
>
> Battery energy density MJ per kilogram
>
> Lithium-ion battery 0.720
> Alkaline battery 0.671
> Nickel-metal 0.28
> Lead-acid battery 0.17

The reason the AGM isn't used in larger applications is that it cannot
be recharged as it is being discharged. You left out a slew that use
Deep Cells.


>
>> IT does the job if you keep it over 50% just like clockwork and
>> can last at least 2 to 5 years without going below 50% charge if you
>> keep them above freezing and below 100 degrees (the same as the
>> Lithiums). I use AGMs on a daily basis and my battery provider says
>> I am the hardest on batteries he's ever seen. I am getting ready to
>> do another build that uses the heavier Deep Cell which is designed to
>> put up with my punishement. But the AGMs are more rugged than the
>> Lithiums that I also use.
>>
>> Nacads also work but for about one run into town before they overheat.
>> Ever seen a Nacad blow up? IT's pretty anticlimatic. They burst and
>> make a mess out of everything around it. And it's caustic. Same goes
>> for a Lithium except they will go into flame and feed the flame until
>> all the liquid is used up. I have never had a case break open on an
>> AGM. I've crashed em, dump em, drop em, used them for Rocky Mountain
>> Offroad, and more.
>>
>> I can see that the Deep Cell Sealed Lead Acid should be as tough and
>> have a longer run time but they are twice as heavy.
>
> Which is something of a problem for aircraft

Just leave out that 1 six pack of Tomato Juice to make up the
difference. It's not a real problem where an extra 10 pounds is really
going to make a difference for something the size of the 787. An added
10 pounds for safety sake is very important.


>
>> The lifespan of
>> the Deep Cell the way I use batteries should be as high as the
>> Lithium and cost less. But the weight means only my 3 wheelers will
>> use them. They just don't make 10 to 15 amp deep cells. But they do
>> make a very solid 35 amp at twice the weight and size of a 12 amp AGM.
>>
>> I am just not sold on Lithiums and I am certainly not sold on Nicads.
>> The Airline Aircraft Industry can use the AGMS and have less problems,
>> almost the same run time as the lower Lithium Mag batteries and save a
>> bunch of money.
>>
>
> Airbus use NiCads ,the Boeing 737, 747 (pre-800) and 777 use NiCads , they
> disagree
> with you.

Nicads are old technology. The AGM batter is much newer. When they
were designing the 737, 747 and 777 the AGMs weren't available. Single
Airplanes use the AGMs and that is more critical for weight and safety
than the big birds are.

I use all these batteries in transporation every day. I am a dealer in
the AGMs and the Lithiums as well as the motors and kits. I can also
get you a good deal in Deep Cells but the shipping would be a killer. I
used to handle Nicads but their output amps were just too low for any of
the transport applications. They would get hot and burn out the
controller after only a few miles of operation.

I'll say it again, after a decade of actually using these batteries,
using nicads is too problematic to depend on for safety. And the LiCo
battery they used has yet to have an application in transportation
because it's just too prone to problems as well. Unlike the Nicad that
just gets hot or ruptures with no fire, the LiCo battery bursts into a
very nasty bonfire. The safest and most dependable battery for them is
still the AGM.

Daryl

[Daryl[_2_]]

On 3/22/2013 7:22 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Daryl" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ...I have never had a case break open on an AGM. Daryl
>
> Then you haven't looked very hard.
>
> http://nissandiesel.dyndns.org/viewtopic.php?t=2891&sid=3ca452f8fb4f5bc1b80260ab112d039d
> "Problem: APC UPSs sometimes have a float charge voltage that is too
> high and tends to cook batteries. Here's a pair of gel/AGM batteries
> from a SUA1000 (not an XL) that have swollen so badly that I had to
> disassemble the case and pry the batteries out of the metal cage: "

And you haven't seen a burst case either. Bulging, deformed, etc. case
but the juice is contained in the case.

DAryl

[Daryl[_2_]]

On 3/22/2013 6:04 AM, GunnerAsch wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:23:17 -0000, "Keith W"
> > wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The conventional Batteries are sometimes called Sealed Lead Acid
>>> Batteries but they are actually AGM batteries.
>>
>> Modern passenger aircraft normally use Nickel Cadmium batteries
>
> Why havent they converted over to NmH?
>
>

The method of charging is more complicated than the other versions.
NiMH batteries work well if you only have one cell (say, 12 volt using 4
3 volt cells). But when you are trying to generate 36 volts to 400
volts, each cell pack must be independently charged. Not possible in
that application.

Actually, it is possible but not practical. As Keith pointed out, NiMH
batteries are used in the Prius so it is done but there are better ways
today. NiMH batteries were passed over very quickly in almost all
applications.

Daryl

[GunnerAsch]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:22:49 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
> wrote:

>"Daryl" > wrote in message
...
>> ...I have never had a case break open on an AGM. Daryl
>
>Then you haven't looked very hard.
>
>http://nissandiesel.dyndns.org/viewtopic.php?t=2891&sid=3ca452f8fb4f5bc1b80260ab112d039d
>"Problem: APC UPSs sometimes have a float charge voltage that is too
>high and tends to cook batteries. Here's a pair of gel/AGM batteries
>from a SUA1000 (not an XL) that have swollen so badly that I had to
>disassemble the case and pry the batteries out of the metal cage: "
>
>
Ive seen that happen many times with alarm system backup batteries
during the 17 yrs when I was running an alarm co..

Gunner

[GunnerAsch]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:40:50 -0000, "Keith W"
> wrote:

>GunnerAsch wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:23:17 -0000, "Keith W"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> The conventional Batteries are sometimes called Sealed Lead Acid
>>>> Batteries but they are actually AGM batteries.
>>>
>>> Modern passenger aircraft normally use Nickel Cadmium batteries
>>
>> Why havent they converted over to NmH?
>
>They have a relatively high self discharge rate and can lose
>up to 20% of the energy stored in the first 24 hours. This is
>acceptable for hybrid vehicles where the battery is primarily a
>temporary buffer to capture the energy from regenerative
>braking but not good for a system intended to initiate an
>aircraft startup sequence after a week in the hangar.
>
>Keith
>
Thats not true anymore. Since Sanyo developed the Enerloop NiMH
battery..they are being shipped charged from the factories. All the
makers are using the new tech and have been doing so for at least 3
yrs. Ive got NiMH batteries that I only need to put on the charger
ever 6 months, just to top them off.

Gunner

[Keith W[_4_]]

Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Mr. B1ack" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....
>>
> Better to fall into the South Atlantic because the Airbust didn't
> inform the pilots that it had stalled.

Actually it did, they simply chose to disregard the stall warning
that sounded continuously for 54 seconds and the stick shaker.

Keith

[Keith W[_4_]]

Daryl wrote:
> On 3/22/2013 6:09 AM, Keith W wrote:
>>
>> Battery energy density MJ per kilogram
>>
>> Lithium-ion battery 0.720
>> Alkaline battery 0.671
>> Nickel-metal 0.28
>> Lead-acid battery 0.17
>
> The reason the AGM isn't used in larger applications is that it cannot
> be recharged as it is being discharged.

Hmm ISTR that my car alternator can charge the battery and
run the lights at the same time so I'd love to know what scenario
you had in my mind there

> You left out a slew that use
> Deep Cells.
>

Feel free to add them in.

>
>>
>>> IT does the job if you keep it over 50% just like clockwork and
>>> can last at least 2 to 5 years without going below 50% charge if you
>>> keep them above freezing and below 100 degrees (the same as the
>>> Lithiums). I use AGMs on a daily basis and my battery provider says
>>> I am the hardest on batteries he's ever seen. I am getting ready to
>>> do another build that uses the heavier Deep Cell which is designed
>>> to put up with my punishement. But the AGMs are more rugged than
>>> the Lithiums that I also use.
>>>
>>> Nacads also work but for about one run into town before they
>>> overheat. Ever seen a Nacad blow up? IT's pretty anticlimatic. They
>>> burst and make a mess out of everything around it. And it's
>>> caustic. Same goes for a Lithium except they will go into flame
>>> and feed the flame until all the liquid is used up. I have never
>>> had a case break open on an AGM. I've crashed em, dump em, drop
>>> em, used them for Rocky Mountain Offroad, and more.
>>>
>>> I can see that the Deep Cell Sealed Lead Acid should be as tough and
>>> have a longer run time but they are twice as heavy.
>>
>> Which is something of a problem for aircraft
>
> Just leave out that 1 six pack of Tomato Juice to make up the
> difference. It's not a real problem where an extra 10 pounds is
> really going to make a difference for something the size of the 787. An
> added 10 pounds for safety sake is very important.
>


Its going to be a lot more than 10 pounds.

>
>>
>>> The lifespan of
>>> the Deep Cell the way I use batteries should be as high as the
>>> Lithium and cost less. But the weight means only my 3 wheelers will
>>> use them. They just don't make 10 to 15 amp deep cells. But they
>>> do make a very solid 35 amp at twice the weight and size of a 12
>>> amp AGM. I am just not sold on Lithiums and I am certainly not sold on
>>> Nicads. The Airline Aircraft Industry can use the AGMS and have
>>> less problems, almost the same run time as the lower Lithium Mag
>>> batteries and save a bunch of money.
>>>
>>
>> Airbus use NiCads ,the Boeing 737, 747 (pre-800) and 777 use NiCads
>> , they disagree
>> with you.
>
> Nicads are old technology. The AGM batter is much newer. When they
> were designing the 737, 747 and 777 the AGMs weren't available. Single
> Airplanes use the AGMs and that is more critical for weight
> and safety than the big birds are.
>

AGM batteries have been around for at least 25 years and Boeing
have used them in military aircraft includng the AV8B so that
idea wont fly. They were certainly around when the 777 was
being designed.

> I use all these batteries in transporation every day. I am a dealer
> in the AGMs and the Lithiums as well as the motors and kits. I can
> also get you a good deal in Deep Cells but the shipping would be a
> killer.

I can buy them locally and have done so for use in towed caravan
installations.

Keith

[Keith W[_4_]]

GunnerAsch wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:40:50 -0000, "Keith W"
> > wrote:
>
>> GunnerAsch wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:23:17 -0000, "Keith W"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The conventional Batteries are sometimes called Sealed Lead Acid
>>>>> Batteries but they are actually AGM batteries.
>>>>
>>>> Modern passenger aircraft normally use Nickel Cadmium batteries
>>>
>>> Why havent they converted over to NmH?
>>
>> They have a relatively high self discharge rate and can lose
>> up to 20% of the energy stored in the first 24 hours. This is
>> acceptable for hybrid vehicles where the battery is primarily a
>> temporary buffer to capture the energy from regenerative
>> braking but not good for a system intended to initiate an
>> aircraft startup sequence after a week in the hangar.
>>
>> Keith
>>
> Thats not true anymore. Since Sanyo developed the Enerloop NiMH
> battery..they are being shipped charged from the factories. All the
> makers are using the new tech and have been doing so for at least 3
> yrs. Ive got NiMH batteries that I only need to put on the charger
> ever 6 months, just to top them off.
>
> Gunner

Trouble is they are not available in the size or capacity to be used
in an electric vehicle, last time I checked the largest was a D size.

Keith

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:57:55 -0000, "Keith W"
> wrote:

>GunnerAsch wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:40:50 -0000, "Keith W"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> GunnerAsch wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:23:17 -0000, "Keith W"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The conventional Batteries are sometimes called Sealed Lead Acid
>>>>>> Batteries but they are actually AGM batteries.
>>>>>
>>>>> Modern passenger aircraft normally use Nickel Cadmium batteries
>>>>
>>>> Why havent they converted over to NmH?
>>>
>>> They have a relatively high self discharge rate and can lose
>>> up to 20% of the energy stored in the first 24 hours. This is
>>> acceptable for hybrid vehicles where the battery is primarily a
>>> temporary buffer to capture the energy from regenerative
>>> braking but not good for a system intended to initiate an
>>> aircraft startup sequence after a week in the hangar.
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>> Thats not true anymore. Since Sanyo developed the Enerloop NiMH
>> battery..they are being shipped charged from the factories. All the
>> makers are using the new tech and have been doing so for at least 3
>> yrs. Ive got NiMH batteries that I only need to put on the charger
>> ever 6 months, just to top them off.
>>
>> Gunner
>
>Trouble is they are not available in the size or capacity to be used
>in an electric vehicle, last time I checked the largest was a D size.
>
>Keith

The Tesla Roadster has 6,831 lithium-ion cells, and each one is
between the size of a AA and a C in diameter, but a little longer than
either.

An AA is 14.5 mm x 50.5 mm. The 18650 Form Factor cells used in the
Tesla are 18.6 mm x 65.2 mm.

--
Ed Huntress

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Keith W" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> "Mr. B1ack" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....
>>>
>> Better to fall into the South Atlantic because the Airbust didn't
>> inform the pilots that it had stalled.
>
> Actually it did, they simply chose to disregard the stall warning
> that sounded continuously for 54 seconds and the stick shaker.
>
> Keith

It sounded for 54 seconds, then it stopped a little after 2h 11m 42s
when they were at 35,000 feet, >40 degrees pitch and falling at 10,000
feet/minute. See pages 22 & 23.
http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/rapport.final.en.php

At 2h 12m ~15s the Pilot Flying made a pitch-down input that brought
their forward speed above the stall warning's lower limit of 60 Kts
and it sounded again, confusing them.

Page 44 of the final report:
" If the CAS measurements for
the three ADR are lower than 60 kt, the angle of attack values of the
three ADR are
invalid and the stall warning is then inoperative."

My real point is to remind Bill Black that he lives in a glass house
and shouldn't throw stones at Boeing.
jsw

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Daryl" > wrote in message
...

> The method of charging is more complicated than the other versions.
> NiMH batteries work well if you only have one cell (say, 12 volt
> using 4 3 volt cells). But when you are trying to generate 36 volts
> to 400 volts, each cell pack must be independently charged. Not
> possible in that application.

If YOU don't know how then it must be impossible.
http://www.mpoweruk.com/balancing.htm
"To provide a dynamic solution to this problem which takes into
account the ageing and operating conditions of the cells, the BMS may
incorporate a Cell Balancing scheme to prevent individual cells from
becoming overstressed. These systems monitor the State of Charge (SOC)
of each cell, or for less critical, low cost applications, simply the
voltage across, each cell in the chain. Switching circuits then
control the charge applied to each individual cell in the chain during
the charging process to equalise the charge on all the cells in the
pack."

The balancing circuit is simply a resistor and a FET across each cell
to bypass some of the charging current when necessary. The FETs can be
optically isolated from the control circuit for high voltage packs.

> And you haven't seen a burst case either. Bulging, deformed, etc.
> case but the juice is contained in the case.

I sure have, it was displayed as a memorable example of how NOT to
design a battery charger. The plate edges were visible through the
crack.

>The reason the AGM isn't used in larger applications is that it
>cannot be recharged as it is being discharged. You left out a slew
>that use Deep Cells.
> Daryl

Again, YOU don't know how. A battery monitor circuit that measures
current and voltage can model the battery with a custom microcomputer
to predict its state of charge and tolerance for charging current, at
any point in the discharge cycle. They lose track as the cells age
which is why Lithiums need to be periodically fully discharged and
recharged, to recalibrate the model.
http://www.ti.com/sc/docs/msp/sine_on/batt_mgmt.pdf

Look at how much the bq2060 can do for $4.32. Connect it to a PIC and
you can record the full service and maintenance history of the
battery, like a little Black Box. That's how I know what really hurts
Lithiums.

jsw

[Keith W[_4_]]

Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:57:55 -0000, "Keith W"
> > wrote:
>
>> GunnerAsch wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:40:50 -0000, "Keith W"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> GunnerAsch wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:23:17 -0000, "Keith W"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The conventional Batteries are sometimes called Sealed Lead Acid
>>>>>>> Batteries but they are actually AGM batteries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Modern passenger aircraft normally use Nickel Cadmium batteries
>>>>>
>>>>> Why havent they converted over to NmH?
>>>>
>>>> They have a relatively high self discharge rate and can lose
>>>> up to 20% of the energy stored in the first 24 hours. This is
>>>> acceptable for hybrid vehicles where the battery is primarily a
>>>> temporary buffer to capture the energy from regenerative
>>>> braking but not good for a system intended to initiate an
>>>> aircraft startup sequence after a week in the hangar.
>>>>
>>>> Keith
>>>>
>>> Thats not true anymore. Since Sanyo developed the Enerloop NiMH
>>> battery..they are being shipped charged from the factories. All the
>>> makers are using the new tech and have been doing so for at least 3
>>> yrs. Ive got NiMH batteries that I only need to put on the charger
>>> ever 6 months, just to top them off.
>>>
>>> Gunner
>>
>> Trouble is they are not available in the size or capacity to be used
>> in an electric vehicle, last time I checked the largest was a D size.
>>
>> Keith
>
> The Tesla Roadster has 6,831 lithium-ion cells, and each one is
> between the size of a AA and a C in diameter, but a little longer than
> either.
>
> An AA is 14.5 mm x 50.5 mm. The 18650 Form Factor cells used in the
> Tesla are 18.6 mm x 65.2 mm.

And a Tesla battery costs between $24,000 and $40,000.

The Toyota list price for the Prius battery is $2,299 but aftermarket
battery costs start around $1,800

Keith


Keith

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Keith W" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:57:55 -0000, "Keith W"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> The Tesla Roadster has 6,831 lithium-ion cells, and each one is
>> between the size of a AA and a C in diameter, but a little longer
>> than
>> either.
>>
>> An AA is 14.5 mm x 50.5 mm. The 18650 Form Factor cells used in the
>> Tesla are 18.6 mm x 65.2 mm.
>
> And a Tesla battery costs between $24,000 and $40,000.
>
> The Toyota list price for the Prius battery is $2,299 but
> aftermarket
> battery costs start around $1,800
>
> Keith

This is a typical price if you want a few to experiment:
http://www.amazon.com/Ultrafire-18650-3000mah-Rechargeable-Battery/dp/B006QQ27BW
A voltage-and-current controlled lab power supply will recharge them
nicely. My 18650 battery holder is a small plastic box with brass
screws threaded into the ends as adjustable terminals
jsw

[Keith W[_4_]]

Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Keith W" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>> "Mr. B1ack" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....
>>>>
>>> Better to fall into the South Atlantic because the Airbust didn't
>>> inform the pilots that it had stalled.
>>
>> Actually it did, they simply chose to disregard the stall warning
>> that sounded continuously for 54 seconds and the stick shaker.
>>
>> Keith
>
> It sounded for 54 seconds, then it stopped a little after 2h 11m 42s
> when they were at 35,000 feet, >40 degrees pitch and falling at 10,000
> feet/minute. See pages 22 & 23.
> http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/rapport.final.en.php
>
> At 2h 12m ~15s the Pilot Flying made a pitch-down input that brought
> their forward speed above the stall warning's lower limit of 60 Kts
> and it sounded again, confusing them.
>
> Page 44 of the final report:
> " If the CAS measurements for
> the three ADR are lower than 60 kt, the angle of attack values of the
> three ADR are
> invalid and the stall warning is then inoperative."
>
> My real point is to remind Bill Black that he lives in a glass house
> and shouldn't throw stones at Boeing.
> jsw

The real point is that the aircraft clearly

1) Indicated that it had reverted to direct law (manual input)
2) Sounded the stall warning
3) Showed that the aircraft was falling at a high angle of attack
and low speed

The pilot flying seems to have been fixated on keeping the
wings level and disregarded the angle of attack which at
2 minutes 12 seconds was 40 degrees ! During the entire
crisis it was never less than 35 degrees.

Keith

[GunnerAsch]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:57:55 -0000, "Keith W"
> wrote:

>GunnerAsch wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:40:50 -0000, "Keith W"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> GunnerAsch wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:23:17 -0000, "Keith W"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The conventional Batteries are sometimes called Sealed Lead Acid
>>>>>> Batteries but they are actually AGM batteries.
>>>>>
>>>>> Modern passenger aircraft normally use Nickel Cadmium batteries
>>>>
>>>> Why havent they converted over to NmH?
>>>
>>> They have a relatively high self discharge rate and can lose
>>> up to 20% of the energy stored in the first 24 hours. This is
>>> acceptable for hybrid vehicles where the battery is primarily a
>>> temporary buffer to capture the energy from regenerative
>>> braking but not good for a system intended to initiate an
>>> aircraft startup sequence after a week in the hangar.
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>> Thats not true anymore. Since Sanyo developed the Enerloop NiMH
>> battery..they are being shipped charged from the factories. All the
>> makers are using the new tech and have been doing so for at least 3
>> yrs. Ive got NiMH batteries that I only need to put on the charger
>> ever 6 months, just to top them off.
>>
>> Gunner
>
>Trouble is they are not available in the size or capacity to be used
>in an electric vehicle, last time I checked the largest was a D size.
>
>Keith
>
D batteries are what they use in some of the electric vehicles as I
recall. Some 300 of them

Or was it 3000?

Gunner

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Keith W" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>
>> At 2h 12m ~15s the Pilot Flying made a pitch-down input that
>> brought
>> their forward speed above the stall warning's lower limit of 60 Kts
>> and it sounded again, confusing them.
>>
>> Page 44 of the final report:
>> " If the CAS measurements for
>> the three ADR are lower than 60 kt, the angle of attack values of
>> the
>> three ADR are
>> invalid and the stall warning is then inoperative."
>>
>> My real point is to remind Bill Black that he lives in a glass
>> house
>> and shouldn't throw stones at Boeing.
>> jsw
>
> The real point is that the aircraft clearly
>
> 1) Indicated that it had reverted to direct law (manual input)
> 2) Sounded the stall warning
> 3) Showed that the aircraft was falling at a high angle of attack
> and low speed
>
> The pilot flying seems to have been fixated on keeping the
> wings level and disregarded the angle of attack which at
> 2 minutes 12 seconds was 40 degrees ! During the entire
> crisis it was never less than 35 degrees.
>
> Keith

"When the calculation of the Vsw speed is not available, this speed is
no longer
displayed on the PFDs. No visual information is then displayed that is
specific to the
approach to stall."

"The angle of attack is the parameter that allows the stall warning to
be triggered. Its
value is not directly displayed to the pilots."

They knew their small nose-up angle, but not the large relative wind
direction component of AoA.

Speculation based on similar non-fatal incidents:
"The reappearance of the flight directors on the PFD when two
airspeeds are calculated
as similar may prompt the crew to promptly engage an autopilot.
However, although
the magnitude of these speeds may be the same, they may be erroneous
and low,
and could cause the autopilot to command flight control surface
movements that are
incompatible with the aircraft's actual speed.

They dance around the possibility that the Flight Director crossbars
on the Primary Flight Display might have misled the crew. The PFD is
on page 39. The reconstructon of information available to the crew
begins on p.93.
jsw

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
> "The angle of attack is the parameter that allows the stall warning
> to be triggered. Its
> value is not directly displayed to the pilots."
>
> They knew their small nose-up angle, but not the large relative wind
> direction component of AoA.
>
> jsw

If that's unclear, they were pitched up 5 degrees and descending at 35
degrees for a combined AoA of 40 degrees.
jsw

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 02:55:46 -0400, Mr. B1ack >
wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:00:07 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
>Sherman) wrote:
>
>>Who are you gonna believe, Boeing or your own lying eyes?
>> |
>> | Boeing Co. (BA)'s assertion that U.S. investigators ruled
>> | out a fire within the battery case of a Japan Airlines Co.
>> | (9201) 787 is premature, a National Transportation Safety
>> | Board spokesman said.
>> |
>> | Investigators examining the Jan. 7 fire aboard the
>> | Dreamliner in Boston haven't ruled out that flames erupted
>> | within the lithium-ion battery container, Peter Knudson
>> | said today in response to questions about the issue.
>> | ...
>> | Michael Sinnett, Boeing's chief project engineer, said in
>> | the briefing that investigators hadn't found evidence of
>> | flames within the Boston battery's container box, an
>> | indication it worked as designed to limit damage from a
>> | battery failure.
>> |
>> | A witness who tried to fight the Jan. 7 fire said he saw 3-
>> | inch (7.6-centimeter) flames outside the lithium-ion
>> | battery, and the NTSB has found evidence of high
>> | temperatures within battery cells that failed, according to
>> | preliminary safety-board documents released March 7.
>> | ...
>><http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-15/ntsb-contradicts-boeing-claim-of-no-fire-in-787-battery>
>>
>> --bks
>
> Gawd ... is THIS thread still going on ???????????/
>
> Yes, the 787 is a failure.
>
> Put it this way ... after hearing about its problems *I* will
> NEVER fly on one - ever.
>
> And I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.
>
> Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....
How about driving in a ford?

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:22:49 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
> wrote:

>"Daryl" > wrote in message
...
>> ...I have never had a case break open on an AGM. Daryl
>
>Then you haven't looked very hard.
>
>http://nissandiesel.dyndns.org/viewtopic.php?t=2891&sid=3ca452f8fb4f5bc1b80260ab112d039d
>"Problem: APC UPSs sometimes have a float charge voltage that is too
>high and tends to cook batteries. Here's a pair of gel/AGM batteries
>from a SUA1000 (not an XL) that have swollen so badly that I had to
>disassemble the case and pry the batteries out of the metal cage: "
>
>
VERY common problem on "A Piece of Crap" UPS systems (as well as some
cheaper ones) but when they split they don't leak.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:05:23 -0600, Daryl
> wrote:

>On 3/22/2013 6:09 AM, Keith W wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2013 3:23 AM, Keith W wrote:
>>>> Daryl wrote:
>>>>> On 3/22/2013 12:55 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:00:07 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
>>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who are you gonna believe, Boeing or your own lying eyes?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Boeing Co. (BA)'s assertion that U.S. investigators ruled
>>>>>>>> out a fire within the battery case of a Japan Airlines Co.
>>>>>>>> (9201) 787 is premature, a National Transportation Safety
>>>>>>>> Board spokesman said.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Investigators examining the Jan. 7 fire aboard the
>>>>>>>> Dreamliner in Boston haven't ruled out that flames erupted
>>>>>>>> within the lithium-ion battery container, Peter Knudson
>>>>>>>> said today in response to questions about the issue.
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Michael Sinnett, Boeing's chief project engineer, said in
>>>>>>>> the briefing that investigators hadn't found evidence of
>>>>>>>> flames within the Boston battery's container box, an
>>>>>>>> indication it worked as designed to limit damage from a
>>>>>>>> battery failure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A witness who tried to fight the Jan. 7 fire said he saw 3-
>>>>>>>> inch (7.6-centimeter) flames outside the lithium-ion
>>>>>>>> battery, and the NTSB has found evidence of high
>>>>>>>> temperatures within battery cells that failed, according to
>>>>>>>> preliminary safety-board documents released March 7.
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> <http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-15/ntsb-contradicts-boeing-claim-of-no-fire-in-787-battery>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --bks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gawd ... is THIS thread still going on ???????????/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, the 787 is a failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Put it this way ... after hearing about its problems *I* will
>>>>>> NEVER fly on one - ever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The conventional Batteries are sometimes called Sealed Lead Acid
>>>>> Batteries but they are actually AGM batteries.
>>>>
>>>> Modern passenger aircraft normally use Nickel Cadmium batteries
>>>
>>> Which are prone to a lot of problems. And it's old tech. Now for the
>>> real negatives. If you overcharge them, they overheat. If you let
>>> them go down below 20% they will need to be taken out and charged
>>> very, very slowly with a special charger. They are very susceptible
>>> to temperature ranges. They are the heaviest of the Non Lead Acid
>>> batteries, their life span is almost equal to the sealed lead acid if
>>> you don't count the fact they damage easy. The cost is more than the
>>> AGM.
>>> The AGM is just now finding it's way into the aircraft industry. Of
>>> course, it has been somewhat over looked because of the Lithiums. But
>>> it appears that small aircraft that are worried about initial building
>>> costs are not overlooking them.
>>>
>>> What they are looking at is the replacement hours on the Lithiums. They
>>> start out at 800 charges and go to 2000 charges depending on the
>>> type of Lithium. The weights in comparison to the AGM is anywhere 3
>>> times to 5 times lighter. But the cost is at least 5 times the cost.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Less time between
>>>>> replacements, requires a heated and cooled area but is the most
>>>>> dependable. If that is all that is keeping the 787 from flying,
>>>>> it's a pretty simple fix.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily as that may need recertification which is a complex
>>>> and lengthy since the batteries would be heavier and take up more
>>>> space.
>>>
>>> They are going to have to be re certified anyway. The AGM isn't that
>>> much larger and it's pretty well proven in the Electric Vehicles to
>>> day.
>>
>> Most electrical vehicles do not use AGM's, their energy density is
>> too low as is their charge rate
>>
>> examples
>> Toyota Prius - NiMH batteries
>> Nissan Leaf - Lithium ion batteries
>> Chevvy Volt - Lithium ion batteries
>> Tesla - Lithium ion batteries
>> Fisker - Lithium ion batteries
>> VW Electric - Lithium ion batteries
>> Renault - Lithium ion batteries
>>
>>
>> Battery energy density MJ per kilogram
>>
>> Lithium-ion battery 0.720
>> Alkaline battery 0.671
>> Nickel-metal 0.28
>> Lead-acid battery 0.17
>
>The reason the AGM isn't used in larger applications is that it cannot
>be recharged as it is being discharged. You left out a slew that use
>Deep Cells.
>
>
>>
>>> IT does the job if you keep it over 50% just like clockwork and
>>> can last at least 2 to 5 years without going below 50% charge if you
>>> keep them above freezing and below 100 degrees (the same as the
>>> Lithiums). I use AGMs on a daily basis and my battery provider says
>>> I am the hardest on batteries he's ever seen. I am getting ready to
>>> do another build that uses the heavier Deep Cell which is designed to
>>> put up with my punishement. But the AGMs are more rugged than the
>>> Lithiums that I also use.
>>>
>>> Nacads also work but for about one run into town before they overheat.
>>> Ever seen a Nacad blow up? IT's pretty anticlimatic. They burst and
>>> make a mess out of everything around it. And it's caustic. Same goes
>>> for a Lithium except they will go into flame and feed the flame until
>>> all the liquid is used up. I have never had a case break open on an
>>> AGM. I've crashed em, dump em, drop em, used them for Rocky Mountain
>>> Offroad, and more.
>>>
>>> I can see that the Deep Cell Sealed Lead Acid should be as tough and
>>> have a longer run time but they are twice as heavy.
>>
>> Which is something of a problem for aircraft
>
>Just leave out that 1 six pack of Tomato Juice to make up the
>difference. It's not a real problem where an extra 10 pounds is really
>going to make a difference for something the size of the 787. An added
>10 pounds for safety sake is very important.
>

But it is a LOT more than 10 lbs!!!!!
>
>>
>>> The lifespan of
>>> the Deep Cell the way I use batteries should be as high as the
>>> Lithium and cost less. But the weight means only my 3 wheelers will
>>> use them. They just don't make 10 to 15 amp deep cells. But they do
>>> make a very solid 35 amp at twice the weight and size of a 12 amp AGM.
>>>
>>> I am just not sold on Lithiums and I am certainly not sold on Nicads.
>>> The Airline Aircraft Industry can use the AGMS and have less problems,
>>> almost the same run time as the lower Lithium Mag batteries and save a
>>> bunch of money.
>>>
>>
>> Airbus use NiCads ,the Boeing 737, 747 (pre-800) and 777 use NiCads , they
>> disagree
>> with you.
>
>Nicads are old technology. The AGM batter is much newer. When they
>were designing the 737, 747 and 777 the AGMs weren't available. Single
>Airplanes use the AGMs and that is more critical for weight and safety
>than the big birds are.
>
>I use all these batteries in transporation every day. I am a dealer in
>the AGMs and the Lithiums as well as the motors and kits. I can also
>get you a good deal in Deep Cells but the shipping would be a killer. I
>used to handle Nicads but their output amps were just too low for any of
>the transport applications. They would get hot and burn out the
>controller after only a few miles of operation.
>
>I'll say it again, after a decade of actually using these batteries,
>using nicads is too problematic to depend on for safety. And the LiCo
>battery they used has yet to have an application in transportation
>because it's just too prone to problems as well. Unlike the Nicad that
>just gets hot or ruptures with no fire, the LiCo battery bursts into a
>very nasty bonfire. The safest and most dependable battery for them is
>still the AGM.
>
>Daryl
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:07:19 -0600, Daryl
> wrote:

>On 3/22/2013 7:22 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> "Daryl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> ...I have never had a case break open on an AGM. Daryl
>>
>> Then you haven't looked very hard.
>>
>> http://nissandiesel.dyndns.org/viewtopic.php?t=2891&sid=3ca452f8fb4f5bc1b80260ab112d039d
>> "Problem: APC UPSs sometimes have a float charge voltage that is too
>> high and tends to cook batteries. Here's a pair of gel/AGM batteries
>> from a SUA1000 (not an XL) that have swollen so badly that I had to
>> disassemble the case and pry the batteries out of the metal cage: "
>
>And you haven't seen a burst case either. Bulging, deformed, etc. case
>but the juice is contained in the case.
>
>DAryl
>
>
I've had them split from top to bottom on both ends - but they are a
"dry" battery. All of the liquid is absorbed in the mat - and by the
time they split they are generally baked dry anyway.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:39:07 -0000, "Keith W"
> wrote:

>Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> "Mr. B1ack" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....
>>>
>> Better to fall into the South Atlantic because the Airbust didn't
>> inform the pilots that it had stalled.
>
>Actually it did, they simply chose to disregard the stall warning
>that sounded continuously for 54 seconds and the stick shaker.
>
>Keith
>

Because they believed the air speed indicator that was lying through
it's teeth.

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
>>
> VERY common problem on "A Piece of Crap" UPS systems (as well as
> some
> cheaper ones) but when they split they don't leak.
>
The acid in an AGM battery is Absorbed in the Glass Mat.
jsw

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"GunnerAsch" > wrote in message
...
>>
> D batteries are what they use in some of the electric vehicles as I
> recall. Some 300 of them
>
> Or was it 3000?
>
> Gunner


http://www.insightcentral.net/encyclopedia/enbattery.html

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:57:55 -0000, "Keith W"
> wrote:

>GunnerAsch wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:40:50 -0000, "Keith W"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> GunnerAsch wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:23:17 -0000, "Keith W"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The conventional Batteries are sometimes called Sealed Lead Acid
>>>>>> Batteries but they are actually AGM batteries.
>>>>>
>>>>> Modern passenger aircraft normally use Nickel Cadmium batteries
>>>>
>>>> Why havent they converted over to NmH?
>>>
>>> They have a relatively high self discharge rate and can lose
>>> up to 20% of the energy stored in the first 24 hours. This is
>>> acceptable for hybrid vehicles where the battery is primarily a
>>> temporary buffer to capture the energy from regenerative
>>> braking but not good for a system intended to initiate an
>>> aircraft startup sequence after a week in the hangar.
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>> Thats not true anymore. Since Sanyo developed the Enerloop NiMH
>> battery..they are being shipped charged from the factories. All the
>> makers are using the new tech and have been doing so for at least 3
>> yrs. Ive got NiMH batteries that I only need to put on the charger
>> ever 6 months, just to top them off.
>>
>> Gunner
>
>Trouble is they are not available in the size or capacity to be used
>in an electric vehicle, last time I checked the largest was a D size.
>
>Keith
>
Oh, they are available a lot bigger than that. Just not readily
available to the public.

From the mpoweruk site:

Unlike the consumer applications where NiMH has been almost completely
replaced by Lithium ion, NiMH chemistry is still finding use in
automotive applications where it is the technology of choice for
powering HEVs and where it has accumulated over 10 years of trouble
free service and can thus last for the lifetime of the car. The
operating temperature range for NiMH cells has been extended to over
100 °C (-30 °C to + 75 °C) which far exceeds the temperature range
currently achievable by Lithium cells making NiMH technology ideal for
automotive use. NiMH can handle the high power levels typical in EV
applications, the active chemicals are inherently safer than Lithium
based cells and NiMH batteries don't need the complex battery
management systems (BMS) essential with Lithium batteries.

Early cells were susceptible to memory effect and also suffered from
high self discharge, nearly ten times worse than Lead acid or Lithium
batteries, but both of these weaknesses have been overcome and it is
claimed that the most recent cells can hold their charge for a year.


Advantages
High energy density (W/kg), about 50% better than Nicads, but only
about 60% of Lithium ion.

Low internal impedance though not as low as NiCads

Typical cycle life is 3000 cycles.

Can be deep cycled. (80% to 100% DOD)

Using NiMH batteries, more than 3000 cycles at 100 % Depth of
Discharge (DOD) have been demonstrated. At lower depths of discharge,
for example at 4 % DOD, more than 350.000 cycles can be expected.

Robust - NiMH batteries also tolerate over charge and over discharge
conditions and this simplifies the battery management requirements.

Flat discharge characteristic (but falls off rapidly at the end of the
cycle)
Wide operating temperature range

Rapid charge possible in 1 hour

Trickle charging can not normally be used with NiMH batteries since
overcharging can cause deterioration of the battery. Chargers should
therefore incorporate a timer to prevent overcharging.

Because of potential pressure build up due to gassing they usually
incorporate a re-sealable vent valve

Reconditioning is possible.

Environmentally friendly (No Cadmium, Mercury or Lead)

Much safer than Lithium based cells in case of an accident or abuse
due to the use of more benign active chemicals, a particularly
important property in high power and automotive applications.



Shortcomings
High self discharge rate.

Can be stored indefinitely either fully charged or fully discharged.

Suffers from memory effect though not as pronounced as with NiCad
batteries

Battery deteriorates during long time storage. This problem can be
solved by charging and discharging the battery several times before
reuse. This reconditioning also serves to overcome the problems of the
"memory" effect.

High rate discharge not as good as NiCads

Less tolerant of overcharging than NiCads

As with NiCads the cells must incorporate safety vents to protect the
cell in case of gas generation.

The coulombic efficiency of nickel metal hydride batteries could be up
to 85% but is typically only around 65% and diminishes the faster the
charge although this is projected to improve.

While the battery may have a high capacity it is not necessarily all
available since it may only deliver full power down to 50% DOD
depending on the application.

Cell voltage is only 1.2 Volts which means that many cells are
required to make up high voltage batteries. The competing Lithium
cells typically have 3 times the cell voltage (3.2 Volts to 3.7 Volts)
and a much higher energy density.

Lower capacity and cell voltage than alkaline primary cells.

Limited supplies of rare earth element Lanthanum. Mostly in China.

[Daryl[_2_]]

On 3/22/2013 2:43 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 02:55:46 -0400, Mr. B1ack >
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:00:07 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
>> Sherman) wrote:
>>
>>> Who are you gonna believe, Boeing or your own lying eyes?
>>> |
>>> | Boeing Co. (BA)'s assertion that U.S. investigators ruled
>>> | out a fire within the battery case of a Japan Airlines Co.
>>> | (9201) 787 is premature, a National Transportation Safety
>>> | Board spokesman said.
>>> |
>>> | Investigators examining the Jan. 7 fire aboard the
>>> | Dreamliner in Boston haven't ruled out that flames erupted
>>> | within the lithium-ion battery container, Peter Knudson
>>> | said today in response to questions about the issue.
>>> | ...
>>> | Michael Sinnett, Boeing's chief project engineer, said in
>>> | the briefing that investigators hadn't found evidence of
>>> | flames within the Boston battery's container box, an
>>> | indication it worked as designed to limit damage from a
>>> | battery failure.
>>> |
>>> | A witness who tried to fight the Jan. 7 fire said he saw 3-
>>> | inch (7.6-centimeter) flames outside the lithium-ion
>>> | battery, and the NTSB has found evidence of high
>>> | temperatures within battery cells that failed, according to
>>> | preliminary safety-board documents released March 7.
>>> | ...
>>> <http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-15/ntsb-contradicts-boeing-claim-of-no-fire-in-787-battery>
>>>
>>> --bks
>>
>> Gawd ... is THIS thread still going on ???????????/
>>
>> Yes, the 787 is a failure.
>>
>> Put it this way ... after hearing about its problems *I* will
>> NEVER fly on one - ever.
>>
>> And I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.
>>
>> Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....
> How about driving in a ford?
>

Hey, watch it. I owned a 65 Mustang and my exwife owned a pinto.
Never could get her to back into anything during the divorce.

Daryl

[Daryl[_2_]]

On 3/22/2013 2:59 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>> VERY common problem on "A Piece of Crap" UPS systems (as well as
>> some
>> cheaper ones) but when they split they don't leak.
>>
> The acid in an AGM battery is Absorbed in the Glass Mat.
> jsw
>
>

No, the Glass Matt just keeps it from sloshing around. You break open
that case and the solution will leak out post haste.

And you have NEVER seen an accidental leaking of an AGM battery. Now
just admit it.

Those that can: Do. Those that can't: Teach

Daryl

[Daryl[_2_]]

On 3/22/2013 2:54 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:07:19 -0600, Daryl
> > wrote:
>
>> On 3/22/2013 7:22 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>> "Daryl" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> ...I have never had a case break open on an AGM. Daryl
>>>
>>> Then you haven't looked very hard.
>>>
>>> http://nissandiesel.dyndns.org/viewtopic.php?t=2891&sid=3ca452f8fb4f5bc1b80260ab112d039d
>>> "Problem: APC UPSs sometimes have a float charge voltage that is too
>>> high and tends to cook batteries. Here's a pair of gel/AGM batteries
>>> from a SUA1000 (not an XL) that have swollen so badly that I had to
>>> disassemble the case and pry the batteries out of the metal cage: "
>>
>> And you haven't seen a burst case either. Bulging, deformed, etc. case
>> but the juice is contained in the case.
>>
>> DAryl
>>
>>
> I've had them split from top to bottom on both ends - but they are a
> "dry" battery. All of the liquid is absorbed in the mat - and by the
> time they split they are generally baked dry anyway.
>

I was talking about accidentally damaging the case on a good battery.
They will leak if you puncture the case. You are right, many are
already cooked and have that ozone smell about them.

Daryl

[Daryl[_2_]]

On 3/22/2013 3:00 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "GunnerAsch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>> D batteries are what they use in some of the electric vehicles as I
>> recall. Some 300 of them
>>
>> Or was it 3000?
>>
>> Gunner
>
>
> http://www.insightcentral.net/encyclopedia/enbattery.html
>
>
>

You believe everything you read? Here is a quote from your very own Cite:

"Its operating temperature range is -30C degrees ~ +60C degrees."

I can tell you (but you won't listen) that if you operate that battery
at anywhere near 10 degree or less in F, well above the -30C rating, you
will be damaging your battery on a daily basis. This is why Tesla
includes a battery heating blanket and an Air Conditioner for it's
battery compartment. Otherwise, you have cells that are going to be
damaged until, one day, you won't be able to get to the local quick stop
and back.

Daryl

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...

> Because they believed the air speed indicator that was lying through
> it's teeth.
>

Or maybe they continued to doubt it after the ice cleared?

The report didn't try too hard to reconstruct what they might have
believed, beyond recounting similar incidents. The pilots do appear to
have interpreted what they saw differently and acted without
coordination. The Flight Data Recorder didn't capture all their
displays. The report mentions that pilots fly their mental perception
of the situation.

AFAICT they assumed they still had adequate speed and lift and didn't
understand why the instruments showed them rapidly descending although
they had applied full power and pulled the nose slightly up.
Apparently that aircraft just mushes down flat when it stalls. They
had trouble controlling roll but not pitch.

My guess is that they assumed from the abnormally high air temperature
in the top of the storm that there might be strong vertical air
currents and may have believed they were caught in a turbulent
downdraft. The voice recording reveals mainly confusion.
jsw

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Daryl" > wrote in message
...
> And you have NEVER seen an accidental leaking of an AGM battery.
> Now just admit it.
> Those that can: Do. Those that can't: Teach
> Daryl

Stop trying to change your own conditions. I've seen one that HAD
ruptured, but I wasn't watching when it happened.
jsw

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:16:58 -0600, Daryl
> wrote:

>On 3/22/2013 2:59 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>
>>> VERY common problem on "A Piece of Crap" UPS systems (as well as
>>> some
>>> cheaper ones) but when they split they don't leak.
>>>
>> The acid in an AGM battery is Absorbed in the Glass Mat.
>> jsw
>>
>>
>
>No, the Glass Matt just keeps it from sloshing around. You break open
>that case and the solution will leak out post haste.
>
>And you have NEVER seen an accidental leaking of an AGM battery. Now
>just admit it.
>
>Those that can: Do. Those that can't: Teach
>
>Daryl
>
They are also called "starved electrolyte" batteries - and even when
fractured they do not "leak". They are very similar in that respect to
the older "gell cell"

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Daryl" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/22/2013 3:00 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> http://www.insightcentral.net/encyclopedia/enbattery.html
>>

> > You believe everything you read? Here is a quote from your very
> > own Cite:
>
> "Its operating temperature range is -30C degrees ~ +60C degrees."
>
> I can tell you (but you won't listen) that if you operate that
> battery at anywhere near 10 degree or less in F, well above the -30C
> rating, you will be damaging your battery on a daily basis. This is
> why Tesla includes a battery heating blanket and an Air Conditioner
> for it's battery compartment. Otherwise, you have cells that are
> going to be damaged until, one day, you won't be able to get to the
> local quick stop and back.
>
> Daryl

Have you been snorting leaded hi-test again? Try to tame those demons;
it's only an example of a D sized battery in a car.
jsw

[Daryl[_2_]]

On 3/22/2013 4:16 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:16:58 -0600, Daryl
> > wrote:
>
>> On 3/22/2013 2:59 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>> VERY common problem on "A Piece of Crap" UPS systems (as well as
>>>> some
>>>> cheaper ones) but when they split they don't leak.
>>>>
>>> The acid in an AGM battery is Absorbed in the Glass Mat.
>>> jsw
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, the Glass Matt just keeps it from sloshing around. You break open
>> that case and the solution will leak out post haste.
>>
>> And you have NEVER seen an accidental leaking of an AGM battery. Now
>> just admit it.
>>
>> Those that can: Do. Those that can't: Teach
>>
>> Daryl
>>
> They are also called "starved electrolyte" batteries - and even when
> fractured they do not "leak". They are very similar in that respect to
> the older "gell cell"
>

Totally different internal makeup between the two. Like many, you are
confusing the two and thinking the internal makeup is similar. They aren't.

The AGM must be kept upright since it does have free liquid in it. What
you see when it's case is bulged is from the Hydrogen and Oxygen being
unable to be vented due to excessive overcharging or the vent hole is
plugged up. Like the old style Lead Acid, when it vents, it burns off
the H2O breaking it up to Hydrogen and Oxygen Gasses. When you open one
up that has done this, what is left is the other parts of the liquid in
the form of solids or actually, powder. The Plates are still lead.
This one, like the unsealed lead acids can form Sulphates on the plates
which shorten the life of the battery because of running them below 50%.
The good news is the desulphators work offered with low amperage may
recover them to almost new condition when that happens.

When you need a battery that cannot be kept in an upright position, you
choose the Gel Cel. In this battery, the Sulfuric Acid is mixed with
Silica Fume and it makes it into a gel. The Plates are of a Calcium
makeup and are not lead. People confuse the AGM with the Gel Cel all
the time. If you want the best, longest lasting UPS battery, get rid of
the AGM and go with the Gel Cel. They cost more but last much longer.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

| ...
| The letter from the NTSB signals tension between the agency
| and Boeing. This is not good for Boeing, as it tries to
| mitigate damage to the image of its high-efficiency 787 --
| that is, once officials clear the plane to fly.
|
| The main complaint from the agency appears to be that
| Boeing representatives provided "their own analysis and
| conclusions regarding an ongoing NTSB investigation,"
| according to Kelly Nantel, a safety board representative.
|
| Boeing representative Marc Birtel, meanwhile, responded to
| the NTSB criticism -- saying the company officials
| "received the correspondence, and remain fully committed to
| support the NTSB and other regulatory authorities in their
| investigations into the cause of the 787 battery incidents."
|
| In a related story from Reuters, Japan's Civil Aviation
| Bureau said on Friday that, despite optimistic predictions
| by Boeing, no test flight of the grounded 787 Dreamliner
| has been scheduled yet.
| ...
<http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=78e5846c-37f3-4e7f-a6d0-e07cdf584ce1>

--bks

[GunnerAsch]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:07:26 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
> wrote:

>"Daryl" > wrote in message
...
>> And you have NEVER seen an accidental leaking of an AGM battery.
>> Now just admit it.
>> Those that can: Do. Those that can't: Teach
>> Daryl

And those that are absolutely worthless, administrate.
>
>Stop trying to change your own conditions. I've seen one that HAD
>ruptured, but I wasn't watching when it happened.
>jsw
>

[Daryl[_2_]]

On 3/22/2013 6:09 PM, GunnerAsch wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:07:26 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Daryl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> And you have NEVER seen an accidental leaking of an AGM battery.
>>> Now just admit it.
>>> Those that can: Do. Those that can't: Teach
>>> Daryl
>
> And those that are absolutely worthless, administrate.

I was stationed with a newly awarded BS in Electronics once. He was a 2
striper. He lorded over all the "Unclean and Uneducated" masses pretty
hard. I finally shut him up by saying that he was an idiot before he
was educated and now he was an ajumicated Idjit. The one that laughed
the hardest at that was a buck sgt who was previously a Cornell
University Professor who had joined the circus to get away. The Prof
had a Masters and was one paper away from his PHD but you couldn't tell
it. He was an alright person, really salt. We finally bugged, griped,
threatened, etc. to get him to turn his paper in that he had already
completed and he went back to Cornell with a full Professorship with his
PHD.

Daryl

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:50:57 -0600, Daryl
> wrote:

>On 3/22/2013 4:16 PM, wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:16:58 -0600, Daryl
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/22/2013 2:59 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>> VERY common problem on "A Piece of Crap" UPS systems (as well as
>>>>> some
>>>>> cheaper ones) but when they split they don't leak.
>>>>>
>>>> The acid in an AGM battery is Absorbed in the Glass Mat.
>>>> jsw
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, the Glass Matt just keeps it from sloshing around. You break open
>>> that case and the solution will leak out post haste.
>>>
>>> And you have NEVER seen an accidental leaking of an AGM battery. Now
>>> just admit it.
>>>
>>> Those that can: Do. Those that can't: Teach
>>>
>>> Daryl
>>>
>> They are also called "starved electrolyte" batteries - and even when
>> fractured they do not "leak". They are very similar in that respect to
>> the older "gell cell"
>>
>
>Totally different internal makeup between the two. Like many, you are
>confusing the two and thinking the internal makeup is similar. They aren't.

I'm not confusing them. I know the difference - and I have some
experience with both gel and AGM batteries in UPS units over a 20 year
history, as well as flooded cell deep discharge batteries in EV use -
going back that far as well, plus "gel" experience in wheelchair
batteries and the old "cyclons"

I have yet to see fluid leak from an AGM battery but I'll admit I've
never smashed a good fresh one. Smashed a few dead ones - and they
are just "damp" "starved electrolyte" batteries have a fiberglass mat
of almost felt consistency which is wet with acid to about 95%
capacity - so if the case is broken there is NO free electrolyte to
leak out.

This is why they are not considered hazardous and do not require
hazardous labeling, and can be shipped by air.
>
>The AGM must be kept upright since it does have free liquid in it.

Baloney. A valve regulated recombinent gas absorbed electrolyte
battery can be mounted, charged, and discharged in any position.
> What
>you see when it's case is bulged is from the Hydrogen and Oxygen being
>unable to be vented due to excessive overcharging or the vent hole is
>plugged up. Like the old style Lead Acid, when it vents, it burns off
>the H2O breaking it up to Hydrogen and Oxygen Gasses. When you open one
>up that has done this, what is left is the other parts of the liquid in
>the form of solids or actually, powder. The Plates are still lead.

Wrong. In an AGM (recombinent gas absorbed electrolyte) battery the
oxygen and hydrogen are catalytically recombined and never vented
under normal conditions. In extreme overcharge, water vapout pressure
can bulge the case if the valves don't vent and the battery boils dry
- which can also bulge the case. You might use a lot of the batteries,
but you don't understand them very well.
>This one, like the unsealed lead acids can form Sulphates on the plates
>which shorten the life of the battery because of running them below 50%.
> The good news is the desulphators work offered with low amperage may
>recover them to almost new condition when that happens.
>

And AGM batteries are virtually imune to sulphation
>When you need a battery that cannot be kept in an upright position, you
>choose the Gel Cel. In this battery, the Sulfuric Acid is mixed with
>Silica Fume and it makes it into a gel. The Plates are of a Calcium
>makeup and are not lead.
Again, Baloney. They are calcium doped lead.

The calcium is used in gell and flooded acid batteries to harden the
lead and strengthen the plate without the excessive gassing and
corrosion, and self discharge of the 3% antimony alloy of a
"conventional" battery. Some batteries use a "conventional" positive
and a calcium negative grid - with the lead paste and lead sulphate
paste caked to the grid, and some use calcium alloy grids for both
(more expensive). A calcium/calcium battery does not gas much and is
used in sealed recombinent (maintenance free) batteries.

With AGM the plates are supported by the glass mat, and in many cases
no calcium or antimony is required. Pure lead thin film AGM batteries
are state of the art for telecom and medical equipment use. They give
the highest power density per unit volume of any lead based battery
technology. They will beat any gel battery hands down - but they do
not come cheap. They can put out insane current, and can be fast
charged without damage.
Odyssey batteries are thin plate pure lead AGM batteries.

We use them in recreation aircraft use almost exclusively.

> People confuse the AGM with the Gel Cel all
>the time. If you want the best, longest lasting UPS battery, get rid of
>the AGM and go with the Gel Cel. They cost more but last much longer.

An AGM battery can stand much higher charge and discharge than the
rather fragile and fussy Gel Cell, which is why gell cells are
virtually extinct in small to medium UPS units and MOST other
applications. Gell and flooded acid batteries both require about 115%
of their rated output in charge - ie - a 100 ah battery requires 115ah
of charge (when new - they can get as bad as 125% and still function).
AGM batteries are down around 102%. This means a LOT less heat in AGM
applications compared to gel. (all that extra wasted 13% power is shed
as heat)

For long slow discharge, in a device with the proper charge controller
for Gel use, the Gel is still a (reasonably) good solution. For heavy
loads, not so good. For high charge rates, not so good. For mobile
high vibration use, not so good - and they DO require a specially
programmed charger. Do NOT charge gel batteries with a normal flooded
acid or agm charger. A pure lead AGM battery is almost always a
better choice.


>
>

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
>
> For long slow discharge, in a device with the proper charge
> controller
> for Gel use, the Gel is still a (reasonably) good solution. For
> heavy
> loads, not so good. For high charge rates, not so good. For mobile
> high vibration use, not so good - and they DO require a specially
> programmed charger. Do NOT charge gel batteries with a normal
> flooded
> acid or agm charger. A pure lead AGM battery is almost always a
> better choice.

Good advice.

While searching for a comparison of flooded, AGM and gel float
voltages I found this:
http://www.windsun.com/Batteries/Battery_FAQ.htm

I charge all types except NiCd and NiMH with a lab supply, and use it
to temporarily recover old NiCd tool packs that have dropped to zero
and won't charge on an automatic charger, and to reform old
electrolytics.

Lead-acids reveal their state of charge by the increasing voltage
needed to force a constant current into them. I get the endpoint
topping or float voltage from the maker's data sheet, or for flooded
cells by measuring the specific gravity and watching for bubbles in
all cells.

I've noticed that the fully charged and endpoint voltages are about
0.2V different for two identical SLA31 batteries bought a year apart.
The cause could be manufacturing differences in the plates, or
variations in the volume or concentration of the acid.
jsw

[Michael A. Terrell]

wrote:
>
> VERY common problem on "A Piece of Crap" UPS systems (as well as some
> cheaper ones) but when they split they don't leak.


they are designed to recharge quickly so they are ready for the next
minor outage. That way they can use a smaller battery and sell them at
a price that most users can afford.

--

Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

Sometimes Friday is just the fifth Monday of the week. :(

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in message
...
>
> wrote:
>>
>> VERY common problem on "A Piece of Crap" UPS systems (as well as
>> some
>> cheaper ones) but when they split they don't leak.

Their battery float voltage can be adjusted, if you don't mind fussing
with them and know what to set it to.
http://www.jjoseph.org/notes/apc_smartups_battery_float_voltage

> they are designed to recharge quickly so they are ready for the
> next
> minor outage. That way they can use a smaller battery and sell them
> at
> a price that most users can afford.

I have small, cheap Conext and Newpoint UPSs that take half a day to
recharge after a run time test. IIRC they draw about 25W from the AC
line when fully discharged.

jsw

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 03:04:41 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> wrote:

>
wrote:
>>
>> VERY common problem on "A Piece of Crap" UPS systems (as well as some
>> cheaper ones) but when they split they don't leak.
>
>
> they are designed to recharge quickly so they are ready for the next
>minor outage. That way they can use a smaller battery and sell them at
>a price that most users can afford.
Yes, but MANY other brands that sell to the same market - at the same
or similar price point, have less of a problem.

[Michael A. Terrell]

wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 03:04:41 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >> VERY common problem on "A Piece of Crap" UPS systems (as well as some
> >> cheaper ones) but when they split they don't leak.
> >
> >
> > they are designed to recharge quickly so they are ready for the next
> >minor outage. That way they can use a smaller battery and sell them at
> >a price that most users can afford.
> Yes, but MANY other brands that sell to the same market - at the same
> or similar price point, have less of a problem.


People around here complain that they aren't ready for the next power
failure. Pick one most suited to your power problems. We get outages
in clusters. You either need a UPS that will charge in a hurry, or a
much larger unit to cover a cluster. If you only have the rare outage,
then you can go for maximum battery life. I use the cheap steel cased
APC units here, because I get used ones for free. There were 17 in one
batch. I also have some commercial grade rack mount units from another
company sitting around, useless. Lots of unmarked parts & the OEM
claims they never made those models. They also claim that anyone
outside the factory is too damned stupid to do more than change the
batteries.


--

Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

Sometimes Friday is just the fifth Monday of the week. :(

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> VERY common problem on "A Piece of Crap" UPS systems (as well as
> >> some
> >> cheaper ones) but when they split they don't leak.
>
> Their battery float voltage can be adjusted, if you don't mind fussing
> with them and know what to set it to.
> http://www.jjoseph.org/notes/apc_smartups_battery_float_voltage


I get five year life out of the steel cased APC UPS without
modifications, and I have only bought one new. that was 14 years ago.
Since then I have accumulated dozens of free units that work when you
replace the battery.


> I have small, cheap Conext and Newpoint UPSs that take half a day to
> recharge after a run time test. IIRC they draw about 25W from the AC
> line when fully discharged.


--

Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

Sometimes Friday is just the fifth Monday of the week. :(

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in message
...
>
> People around here complain that they aren't ready for the next
> power
> failure. Pick one most suited to your power problems.

My need for a computer UPS went away when I switched from desktops to
laptops. I still use an external keyboard on the pull-out tray and a
large second monitor on the shelf. Spare batteries for the common
Dells are cheaper than UPS replacement batteries.
http://www.amazon.com/Replacement-Li-ion-battery-Latitude-Laptops/dp/B0011X5I7U

Laptops usually consume much less power than desktops and so last
longer on batteries. Mine also run off a square-pulse UPS output
though apparently not all brands will.

I trimmed out the political groups.
jsw

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > People around here complain that they aren't ready for the next
> > power
> > failure. Pick one most suited to your power problems.
>
> My need for a computer UPS went away when I switched from desktops to
> laptops. I still use an external keyboard on the pull-out tray and a
> large second monitor on the shelf. Spare batteries for the common
> Dells are cheaper than UPS replacement batteries.
> http://www.amazon.com/Replacement-Li-ion-battery-Latitude-Laptops/dp/B0011X5I7U
>
> Laptops usually consume much less power than desktops and so last
> longer on batteries. Mine also run off a square-pulse UPS output
> though apparently not all brands will.
>
> I trimmed out the political groups.


Some of the micro desktops are laptops without a display or
keyboard. I have three that need new electrolytics.

--

Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

Sometimes Friday is just the fifth Monday of the week. :(

[Transition Zone]

On Mar 24, 8:58*am, "Jim Wilkins" > wrote:
> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> >> Just so you know, my chemistry degree is academic and a very good
> >> general science foundation but my electronics education came from
> >> the
> >> Army, the lab bench and the factory floor, testing and repairing
> >> medical and EV batteries for example.
>
> >> Many times I've been the unfortunate designated stuckee who
> >> connects
> >> Engineering to Production, turns dreams into practical working
> >> hardware, and has to tolerate abuse and resentment from both sides.
>
> > * Been there, done that. *You have my sympathy.
>
> The production ladies became very cooperative once they realized I
> would listen to and respect their advice. The male Production Manager
> was another story. That is a revolving-door job like programmer, ad
> copy writer and salesman, and I'm not dumb enough to take it on,
> though I may have made them feel threatened that I might. In a high
> tech organization the staff with a business rather than scientific
> education always seemed nervous and defensive about their job
>security. They may bluster and pretend like TZ but like him they
can't
> hide their ignorance for long.

Yep, Jim Wilkins brought 20 solid years of fussing like a worthless 5
year-old. (I bet he's proud)

[Bradley K. Sherman]

| ...
| Part of the lithium-ion safety problem, says Elton Cairns,
| a faculty senior scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National
| Laboratory, in California, involves the electrolytes in the
| batteries. "We're using mixtures of organic solvents that
| are quite flammable and quite volatile," he says of today's
| lithium-ion electrolytes. "In my view, that's just asking
| for trouble." And with enough heat, oxygen gets liberated
| from a battery's metal-oxide anode. "There you've got all
| the makings of a fire," he says. And a flame front that
| doesn't need anything outside the battery to sustain itself
| is very hard to extinguish. That's why lithium-ion battery
| fires can get so big (like the one that knocked out a U.S.
| Navy minisub in 2008), he says.
| ...
<http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/fuel-cells/can-signal-processing-stop-battery-fires>

| ...
| The Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) submersible
| suffered major damage during a fire Nov. 9 while the craft
| was recharging its lithium-ion batteries at a special base
| in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. No one was severely hurt in the
| accident, but the fire burned for several hours before it
| was extinguished.
|
| Although an investigation still hasn't determined what
| caused the fire, the Navy estimates repairs to the 60-ton
| craft would cost $237 million, or $180 million more than
| the craft's operating budget, and take nearly three years
| to complete.
| ...
<http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/07/navy_seal_minisub_072709w/>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| Boeing today conducted a flight test on LN86, the aircraft
| being used for 787 tests, which the company says were
| unrelated to a fix for the aircraft's lithium-ion batteries.
|
| The aircraft, also known by its Boeing production
| designation as ZA272, originally was expected to make a
| test flight on March 30, but for unknown reasons this was
| cancelled. Boeing says the "flight is unrelated to the
| ongoing 787 battery certification testing. The battery
| certification demonstration flight will take place in the
| coming days."
|
| The airframer last flew ZA272 when it conducted a
| functional test flight on March 25.
|
| The interim testing appears to be focused on verifying the
| functionality of specific systems that could play a key
| role in the upcoming battery demonstration flight, as well
| as other electrical systems unrelated to the battery
| modification. A revised power panel design was expected to
| be tested as part of the canceled March 30 flight from
| Paine Field at Boeing's Everett, Wash., production facility.
|
| The power panel has been the source of early in-service
| issues with the 787, as revealed by launch operator All
| Nippon Airways, which indicated the unit had been the cause
| of erroneous error messages on the engine indicating and
| crew alerting system during events in March, April and June
| 2012. Investigators found that a short in one of the power
| panel circuit boards caused the April event.
| ...
<http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_04_01_2013_p0-564734.xml>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| Don't expect FAA certification of Boeing's lithium-ion
| battery fix for the 787 Dreamliner any sooner than April
| 24, the end of a planned two-day "investigative hearing" on
| the batteries by the National Transportation Safety Board.
|
| That's partly because the Federal Aviation Administration,
| and its process for certifying the Dreamliner's troubled
| battery system, will on the agenda for the hearing.
| ...
<http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/02/ntsb-to-grill-witnesses-on-787.html>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| A U.S. Senate committee is hosting a hearing to discuss
| ongoing investigations into battery issues aboard the
| Boeing 787.
|
| The Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has
| scheduled the hearing for April 16, when the committee will
| also hear about the Federal Aviation Administration's
| efforts to implement safety provisions in FAA
| authorizations.
|
| The committee will receive testimony from Michael Huerta,
| administrator of the FAA; Deborah Hersman, chairman of the
| National Transportation Safety Board; Gerald Dillingham,
| director of civil aviation issues for the Government
| Accountability Office; and Jeffery Guzzetti, assistant
| inspector general for the Department of Transportation
| Office of Inspector General.
| ...
<http://www.gsabusiness.com/news/47258-u-s-senate-committee-to-hear-update-on-boeing-787-investigation?rss=0>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| Boeing Co. (BA)'s effort to get its troubled 787 Dreamliner
| back in the air is headed for a challenging final hurdle:
| It needs approval from the U.S. agency that's already been
| burned by signing off on the plane's safety.
| ...
| The FAA isn't discussing its plans for deciding whether the
| battery fix is satisfactory beyond saying that it won't
| sign off on the Dreamliner's return to commercial flight
| until the new battery system is deemed safe, according to
| Laura Brown, a spokeswoman. She declined to comment on
| whether the FAA is under any political pressure.
|
| The FAA's role in approving the cells for the Dreamliner in
| 2007 will be the focus of a two-day NTSB hearing starting
| April 23. The batteries were certified under "special
| conditions," which are rules the FAA creates for new
| technology.
|
| Another NTSB hearing starts today on the use of lithium-ion
| batteries in transportation, and next week, the Dreamliner
| probably will come up when the Senate Commerce, Science and
| Transportation Committee holds a hearing to discuss the
| FAA's progress on safety initiatives.
| ...
| [Transportation Secretary] LaHood, 67, a former seven-term
| Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from
| Illinois, has played a prominent role since the
| Dreamliner's batteries came under scrutiny with a Jan. 7
| fire on a Japan Airlines 787.
|
| At a Jan. 11 news conference, he and FAA chief Michael
| Huerta declared the plane safe. Less than a week afterward,
| an ANA 787's battery began smoldering and spewing vapor
| above Japan, prompting an emergency landing and then the
| grounding.
|
| LaHood's involvement in the 787 decision escalates pressure
| on the FAA, said John Nance, a Seattle-based
| aviation-safety consultant and former commercial pilot.
| ...
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-10/boeing-faces-last-hurdle-for-dreamliner-with-no-rush-faa.html>

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Discussing an NTSB meeting to be held on 23,24 April:
|
| National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) chief Deborah
| Hersman said Friday an upcoming hearing should reveal "a
| lot more about the certification and design process" that
| Boeing and aviation regulators used for the 787 Dreamliner
| battery system before it went into service.
|
| After that, she said in an interview, "If we believe there
| are changes that need to be made, we will pursue that."
|
| Hersman said the NTSB will review Boeing's design and risk
| analysis and the Federal Aviation Administration's
| certification process in its final investigation report,
| which should be issued by the end of the year.
| ...
| She declined to comment specifically on Boeing's proposed
| battery fix. The NTSB is charged with assessing safety and
| making recommendations, but the FAA sets the rules of
| aviation, and it's the agency that grounded the Boeing jets.
|
| "Boeing has to identify and properly mitigate the risks to
| the FAA's satisfaction," Hersman said. Lifting the
| grounding "really is up to the FAA."
| ...
| Hersman acknowledged that it's a challenge to identify the
| root cause of the internal short known to have started the
| Boston battery fire because the battery was severely
| damaged.
|
| In searching for that cause, her experts are conducting
| weeks-long tests on other batteries produced by Boeing's
| supplier, GS Yuasa of Japan.
|
| "We have to let the investigation play out," Hersman said.
|
<http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020769388_ntsbhersmanxml.html>

--bks

[David E. Powell]

On Apr 13, 9:30*am, (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> Discussing an NTSB meeting to be held on 23,24 April:
> *|
> *| National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) chief Deborah
> *| Hersman said Friday an upcoming hearing should reveal "a
> *| lot more about the certification and design process" that
> *| Boeing and aviation regulators used for the 787 Dreamliner
> *| battery system before it went into service.
> *|
> *| After that, she said in an interview, "If we believe there
> *| are changes that need to be made, we will pursue that."
> *|
> *| Hersman said the NTSB will review Boeing's design and risk
> *| analysis and the Federal Aviation Administration's
> *| certification process in its final investigation report,
> *| which should be issued by the end of the year.
> *| ...
> *| She declined to comment specifically on Boeing's proposed
> *| battery fix. The NTSB is charged with assessing safety and
> *| making recommendations, but the FAA sets the rules of
> *| aviation, and it's the agency that grounded the Boeing jets.
> *|
> *| "Boeing has to identify and properly mitigate the risks to
> *| the FAA's satisfaction," Hersman said. Lifting the
> *| grounding "really is up to the FAA."
> *| ...
> *| Hersman acknowledged that it's a challenge to identify the
> *| root cause of the internal short known to have started the
> *| Boston battery fire because the battery was severely
> *| damaged.
> *|
> *| In searching for that cause, her experts are conducting
> *| weeks-long tests on other batteries produced by Boeing's
> *| supplier, GS Yuasa of Japan.
> *|
> *| "We have to let the investigation play out," Hersman said.
> *|
> <http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020769388_ntsbhersma...>
>
> * * --bks

Thank you for keeping us updated. I am sure the Japanese will want to
know what's going on too as they are big customers for the plane as
well as parts suppliers. Also, the idea of future battery use in
aircraft applications is a big one for industry folks to watch.

I wonder how hard it is just to put a new type of battery in there?

-- David

Maybe the secret really is NiMH.

(Thank you, thank you, try the chicken Parma, please tip your
waiter....)

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| (Reuters) - Boeing Co (BA.N) has finished testing its
| redesigned 787 Dreamliner battery system, the Federal
| Aviation Administration said Tuesday, but the agency gave
| no timetable for when it would lift a ban on flights by the
| new jet.
|
| FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said the agency is
| reviewing the tests and analysis and "will approve the
| redesign once we are satisfied Boeing has shown the
| redesigned battery system meets FAA requirements."
| ...
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-aviation-hearing-idUSBRE93F13T20130416>

--bks

[Vaughn]

"Regulators on Friday approved a revamped battery system for Boeing Co's
787 Dreamliner, a crucial step in returning the high-tech jet to service
after it was grounded in January because the plane's lithium-ion
batteries overheated.

The Federal Aviation Administration said it had approved a package of
detailed design changes, a move that allows Boeing to issue a service
bulletin and make repairs to the fleet of 50 planes owned by eight
airlines around the world. Other global regulators also must approve
Boeing's new design but were expected to act quickly once the FAA gave
its blessing.

The FAA action all but ends a grounding that has cost Boeing an
estimated $600 million, halted deliveries and forced some airlines to
lease alternative aircraft."

Entire article at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/19/us-boeing-dreamliner-battery-idUSBRE93I11C20130419

Vaughn

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| Boeing's revolutionary 787 airliner moved significantly
| closer to returning to service on Friday when the Federal
| Aviation Administration approved design modifications for a
| malfunctioning battery system that caused a worldwide
| grounding of the new planes.
|
| "These changes to the 787 battery will ensure the safety of
| the aircraft and its passengers," said Transportation
| Secretary Ray LaHood.
| ...
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/boeing-787-may-fly-again-soon/2013/04/19/c82218cc-a920-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_story.html>

No word on what actually happened to cause the problem.

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| Boeing Co.'s BA +1.29% 787 Dreamliner returned to revenue
| service, as an Ethiopian Airlines commercial flight
| Saturday became the first to use the plane since its
| world-wide grounding more than three months ago.
|
| The flight, operating as Ethiopian Airlines Flight 801,
| departed the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa just before
| 11 a.m. local time and arrived in Nairobi, Kenya, at 12:38
| p.m. local time, according to flight records on the
| airline's website.
| ...
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323789704578448751119295708.html>

--bks