Author Topic: 787 Battery Fix Approved  (Read 1082 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jetsetterace

  • Turbine Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 564
787 Battery Fix Approved
« on: April 20, 2013, 12:18:33 AM »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22226843

Looks like we'll see the mighty 787 back in the sky VERY, VERY soon! :yeah:
Regards,
-Ace | P3Dv4

"They don't think it be like it is, but it do." -Oscar Gamble

Offline EarnhardtJR

  • Turbine Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 714
Re: 787 Battery Fix Approved
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2013, 12:32:39 AM »
I heard Ethiopian is relaunching the 787 services on 25 April  ;)
Aaron,

EHRD/EGNT

Offline jetsetterace

  • Turbine Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 564
Re: 787 Battery Fix Approved
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2013, 01:36:01 AM »
The sooner they're back in the air, the better! :)
Regards,
-Ace | P3Dv4

"They don't think it be like it is, but it do." -Oscar Gamble

Offline Tom C.

  • Command Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 3830
Re: 787 Battery Fix Approved
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2013, 07:32:07 PM »
Anyone else concerned about all this business?

Boeing to FAA/JAA.
We made a fix to contain the problem...
Not.
We fixed the problem...

Hopefully for Boeing, nothing drastic happens these batteries again.
God forbid a major accident with fatalaties or serious injuries occurs with a link to another battery going ape, it'll be the death of the 787, if not also seriously damage Boeing's reputation.

Tom C.

 Veni,           Vidi,        Velcro  
I came,      I saw,    I stuck around...

Once upon a time AFCAD developer!

Offline steve63

  • Turbine 2nd Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
Re: 787 Battery Fix Approved
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2013, 09:36:14 PM »
 I agree with Tom. These planes should not be back in the air with the cause of the problem not solved.
I was thinking of flying with my family to London on BA when they start their CYYC-EGLL route with the
B787 but not if they can only contain the problem. I will stick with ACA and heir trusty A330s B767s and B777s.



Offline Jan Martin

  • Turbine Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • FS Addon Designer
    • Jan's Websites
Re: 787 Battery Fix Approved
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2013, 05:06:52 PM »
I really don't understand, why did Boeing not go back to more reliable battery types, like Airbus will do with the A350. To me it seems they only tinkered a little bit around without finding the real cause of the problem, which does not seem to be limited to LiIo batteries in aircraft but also to those in cell phones, cameras and so on. I began to store such unused batteries safely in my home. I don't trust them anymore, after all I've read past the B787-incidents in the last weeks.

Offline jetsetterace

  • Turbine Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 564
Re: 787 Battery Fix Approved
« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2013, 06:51:00 PM »
I wonder why they decided to go with LiIo batteries to begin with. It's not like they provide an insane fuel advantage..
Regards,
-Ace | P3Dv4

"They don't think it be like it is, but it do." -Oscar Gamble

Offline vc-10

  • Command Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 2872
  • Fly Embraer Jets!
Re: 787 Battery Fix Approved
« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2013, 11:08:14 PM »
Exactly- Li-Ion batteries make sense in phones where they make up a significant proportion of the overall product, but compared to a plane where the battery is tiny and light compared to the rest of the aircraft the benefits are much reduced, while the risks are higher. I'm not advocating putting in a bunch of Lead-Acid batteries (like car batteries) as they weigh a huge amount, but there are alternative chemistries that are lighter, rechargeable, and safer (Ni-MH, for example), if not quite as light as Li-Ion.

Offline benclark

  • AIG Dispatch
  • Command Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 2375
    • www.realbigtree.com
Re: 787 Battery Fix Approved
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2013, 01:12:55 AM »
Tbh li-ion batteries are perfectly safe as long as they are vented properly, have their temperature monitored and not over or hot charged. These are things that are easily controllable onboard an aircraft so why they have chosen not to do so dumbfounds me!

Offline flying finn

  • Turbine Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
Re: 787 Battery Fix Approved
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2013, 05:43:11 AM »
That 'fix' is just another example of bean counters running the aviation industry. It's part of a continuing trend: for expel to outsource the maintenance to where is done in cheapest price, push pilots to work too much hours with little rest etc. I'm afraid we are going to see much more accidents in future, accountants don't understand the safety critical side of aviation industry. Besides 787 there is few European carriers I like to keep my feet out.

As of this fix. I heard it was too slow and expensive to convert 787 to traditional batteries. It would need new certification and residing of much of electrical system because Dreamliner relies so much on electricity.
â??Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of geniusâ??and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. â?
-E. F. Schumacher 1973

Offline vc-10

  • Command Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 2872
  • Fly Embraer Jets!
Re: 787 Battery Fix Approved
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2013, 01:54:13 PM »
Besides 787 there is few European carriers I like to keep my feet out.

You do hear horror stories about LCC crews working ridiculous hours.. then again, at least there are limits on how many hours a day a pilot is allowed to fly, the same doesn't apply to hospitals where I work. Mad.

Offline Jan Martin

  • Turbine Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • FS Addon Designer
    • Jan's Websites
Re: 787 Battery Fix Approved
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2013, 04:07:40 PM »
provide an insane fuel advantage.
According to a german news source, the weight of the modification will increase by about 70kgs per aircraft. This is nearly the weight of one passenger without baggage, or: about 60 to 70 tons of additional fuel per year per aircraft.

Offline benclark

  • AIG Dispatch
  • Command Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 2375
    • www.realbigtree.com
Re: 787 Battery Fix Approved
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2013, 07:09:56 PM »
provide an insane fuel advantage.
According to a german news source, the weight of the modification will increase by about 70kgs per aircraft. This is nearly the weight of one passenger without baggage, or: about 60 to 70 tons of additional fuel per year per aircraft.
Very similar to the tires on your car. 1psi below or over pressure can have an amazing impact on fuel economy!

Offline steve63

  • Turbine 2nd Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
Re: 787 Battery Fix Approved
« Reply #13 on: April 30, 2013, 02:47:54 AM »
 God help Boeing if on goes down and everyone dies. It would also destroy any credibility the Federal Aviation Administration has.
I always assumed that all problems had to be identified and solved before the aircraft was recertified after a grounding.


Offline M-Sauce

  • Command Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 3782
Re: 787 Battery Fix Approved
« Reply #14 on: April 30, 2013, 02:58:54 AM »
Quote
It would also destroy any credibility the Federal Aviation Administration has.

Don't worry, that was lost a long time ago. Most of government, including all of its regulatory agencies, are owned by lobby groups of the big money corporations these days. That is why a simple thing like gun purchasing background checks, which has 90% approval among the American public, still can't get passed by the Senate.

Several years on from the Colgan crash, which at the time, seemed to gather a lot of the public support, and we still can't even enact the watered down versions of the necessary safety measures to improve the safety of our airlines.

 :groan:
ROG Rampage V Edition 10, Intel Core i7-6850K 4.6GHz (OC & Watercooled)
Corsair VLPX DDR4-3200 64GB , Samsung M2 960 PRO 2TB, SanDisk 1TBx2 (RAID 0)
EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 SC (2xSLI & Watercooled), Asus ROG PG348Q, TM HOTAS Warthog
Caselabs Merlin SM8, Corsair AX1500i, Win 10 Pro 64Bit, P3D Version 4