• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

787 electrical fires, they keep cropping up.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Darn. Now I am glad that I did not pick the ANA with the 787 across the Pacific Ocean. I will get the Aseana with 747 instead.
 
Rifter said:
Not really worried, every single 787 in the world could burst into flames and kill everyone on board and air travel would still be orders of magnatute safer than car travel.

They will work out the bugs.
Click to expand...
Nobody is worried about the safety of air travel, this has more to do with Boeing stockholders.
 
Boeing has replaced as many functions as possible by electric power, functions that were previously dependent on compressor air bled from the engines and hydraulic power.
It's not surprising to see electrical problem BUT when they result in fire it's a game changer. I hope Boeing will be able to resolve the issues soon.
 
Number1 said:
Boeing has replaced as many functions as possible by electric power, functions that were previously dependent on compressor air bled from the engines and hydraulic power.
Click to expand...

A lot to replace and been replaced...should anything else happen - need to replace an aircraft - cheaper would be and Boeing Pinocchios - investors would loose less...

Maybe Boeing could come up with smokeless 797?

What about to outsource Boeing to China? Pentagon already is buying from China counterfeit electronic parts...and defense of all county is way more important than some civil passengers...

Why need to trust Dreamliner to some six-pack Joe?
 
Gintaras said:
A lot to replace and been replaced...should anything else happen - need to replace an aircraft - cheaper would be and Boeing Pinocchios - investors would loose less...

Maybe Boeing could come up with smokeless 797?

What about to outsource Boeing to China? Pentagon already is buying from China counterfeit electronic parts...and defense of all county is way more important than some civil passengers...

Why need to trust Dreamliner to some six-pack Joe?
Click to expand...

I am getting worried about you. Are you taking all the medication you should be taking?
 
Number1 said:
Boeing has replaced as many functions as possible by electric power, functions that were previously dependent on compressor air bled from the engines and hydraulic power.
It's not surprising to see electrical problem BUT when they result in fire it's a game changer. I hope Boeing will be able to resolve the issues soon.
Click to expand...

Eh...not real concerned. The A380 and the 777 also had their problems but people don't remember.

Probably a bad run of batteries or something in the charging system. More inclined the think it's the former.
 
At least these incidents are pretty much happening in one area. They'll be able to get a lot of data from the multiple failures. Of course, it'd be better to have the plane not have any issues right now, but in a year most of these issues will be long forgotten unless there is a major accident. With the amount of new tech in this plane, there's a lot more that could have gone wrong (and still may) as they work out the bugs.
 
You have to wonder if the problems are not brought under control how many of the 800+ Dreamliners on order will be canceled..
 
Daaavo said:
Breaking news on all the majors, "FAA GROUNDS BOEING 787 DREAMLINER JETS"

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/faa-grounds-all-boeing-787s-over-safety-concerns-1B7991426
Click to expand...

I was wondering how long it would take for this to happen.

Boing needs to go back to the drawing board and fix these issues before any of these are allowed to fly. Sucks, but this is a major safety issue.

It's kinda like a car recall, but for planes. Instead of an average size family dying in a crash because of a stuck pedal, it's 200+ people because a plane spontaneously combusts in mid air. Well thankfully none of these incidents have lead to that, but it's still pretty serious.
 
Good, they need to get the battery problem sorted out and get flying again.

I'm glad the FAA noted that it's the batteries that need to be shown to be safe, and not the airplane.

Battery types can be replaced.
 
Last edited:
Sure battery types can be replaced. In maybe in 6 months to a 1 year. You can't just replace the batteries with another type just on a whim, they must be tested/certified to the airplane. I Expect the 787 to be flying with the same batteries in the near future and maybe an AD issued to replace the batteries with a modded type down the road.
 
They could probably pick a battery pack that is already certified. During testing they likely had more than one mfg making batteries. They could probably go to one of the other mfgs that was making batteries for the 787 when mfgs were trying to win the contract.

The 787 can fly with the APU inop, so they would only need to immediately find a replacement for the other battery pack.

It seems odd because the 787 went through extensive flight testing. Hard to believe the battery packs didn't show problems then. They were flown a lot.
 
It might be something as simple as the charge controller software. It could be bad on some planes, causing overcharging. A software correction might fix it.

Maybe they are charging to 95% of capacity and that is too close to allow for battery pack variation, causing some packs to overheat/overcharge. So they have to change it to charge to 90% of capacity.

Or it could be something worse, but I don't see how at the moment. I'd think it has to be bad batteries or improper charging.

Possibly wire chafing somewhere, which is probably the easiest fix.
 
LTC8K6 said:
They could probably pick a battery pack that is already certified. During testing they likely had more than one mfg making batteries. They could probably go to one of the other mfgs that was making batteries for the 787 when mfgs were trying to win the contract.

The 787 can fly with the APU inop, so they would only need to immediately find a replacement for the other battery pack.

It seems odd because the 787 went through extensive flight testing. Hard to believe the battery packs didn't show problems then. They were flown a lot.
Click to expand...

As others have pointed out.. the 787 has a different electrical system then its predecessors. Not only would the battery have to be certified, it would have to have very specific weight and size specifications. Batteries in older planes did not do much other than as standby power in case all power was lost or to just start the APU. Batteries in the 787 power a lot of systems that used to use bleed air and hydraulics.

The 787 has also done away with copper wiring in its electrical system.

Here is to hoping it is just a bad batch of batteries.
 
rudder said:
As others have pointed out.. the 787 has a different electrical system then its predecessors. Not only would the battery have to be certified, it would have to have very specific weight and size specifications. Batteries in older planes did not do much other than as standby power in case all power was lost or to just start the APU. Batteries in the 787 power a lot of systems that used to use bleed air and hydraulics.

The 787 has also done away with copper wiring in its electrical system.

Here is to hoping it is just a bad batch of batteries.
Click to expand...

I doubt only one mfg was trying to win the battery contract. There would have been more than one making a battery to the same specs.

Batteries in the 787 don't power anything unless there is a failure of mains/generator power as far as I know. The APU is not started with it's battery unless mains/generator power is not available to start it as far as I know.

The batteries in the 787 are emergency power, just as they are in older planes.
 
The 787 is the First time Boeing outsourced everything out all over the world. It was one if the biggest reasons for the delays in manufacturing.

The whole outsourcing of the 787 was a major disaster, they are now trying to reverse the damage by trying to insource back parts of the 787 process.

It cost Boeing more money outsourcing in the end compared to if they would have done it like the 747.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I doubt only one mfg was trying to win the battery contract. There would have been more than one making a battery to the same specs.

Batteries in the 787 don't power anything unless there is a failure of mains/generator power as far as I know. The APU is not started with it's battery unless mains/generator power is not available to start it as far as I know.

The batteries in the 787 are emergency power, just as they are in older planes.
Click to expand...

You come across as such a fan boy. Stop making excuses for Boeing. They have a major problem on their hand. As I mentioned before, systems that were run in older airplanes by hydraulics and air bleed are now run by electricity and those systems require substantial battery backup. Those batteries have to deliver hundreds of amps to the various systems and that's why Boeing went with Li-Ion batteries.

The problem is, lithium ion batteries have had fire problems in computers, cars, drills and everything else they have been used in, including state of the art airliners.
I hope Boeing comes up with a solution SOON.
 
75.26 +0.92 (1.24%)

After Hours: 75.32 +0.06 (0.08%) Jan 17, 7:10PM EST NYSE real-time data - Disclaimer Currency in USD




Range 72.68 - 75.63 52 week 66.82 - 78.02 Open 72.78 Vol / Avg. 21.87M/6.01M Mkt cap 56.75B P/E 13.28 Div/yield 0.49/2.58 EPS 5.67 Shares 754.08M Beta 1.21 Inst. own 73%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top