Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 96

Thread: Boeing 787 Dreamliner in traffic , NEWS (Cont.)

  1. #81
    Super Moderator scanhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    ESML
    Posts
    3,433

    ANA replaced 10 Dreamliner batteries before emergency landing

    TOKYO – All Nippon Airways <9202.T> said it had replaced 10 below-par lithium-ion batteries on its Boeing Co 787 Dreamliners in the months before one of the passenger jets was forced to make an emergency landing due to an overheated battery triggering smoke alarms.
    The Japanese carrier, the biggest customer to date for the new Boeing jetliner, did not inform accident investigators in the United States because the incidents, including 5 batteries that had unusually low charges, did not compromise the plane's safety, ANA spokesman Ryosei Nomura said on Wednesday.
    ANA did, however, inform Boeing of the faults that began in May, and returned the batteries to their manufacturer, GS Yuasa Corp <6674.T>. A spokesman for the battery maker declined to comment on Wednesday. Shares of the company fell 1.2 percent.
    Boeing spokesman Marc Birtel said the airplane maker could not comment as the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has indicated this is now part of their investigation.
    The New York Times earlier quoted an NTSB spokeswoman as saying the agency would include these "numerous issues" with the 787 battery in its investigations.
    Under aviation inspection rules, airlines are required to perform detailed battery inspections once every two years.
    The global fleet of 50 Dreamliners - 17 of which are operated by ANA - remain grounded as investigators in Japan and the U.S. try to find out what caused one battery to catch fire on a Japan Airlines Co <9201.T> 787 at Boston's Logan Airport earlier this month, and a second battery to burn on the ANA domestic flight that made the emergency landing.
    The NTSB said on Tuesday it was carrying out a microscopic investigation of the JAL 787 battery. Neither it nor the Japan Transport Safety Board has been able to say when they are likely to complete their work.

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013...ency-landing/?

  2. #82
    Super Moderator scanhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    ESML
    Posts
    3,433

    AP Exclusive: 787 grounded, but batteries can fly

    WASHINGTON (AP) — At the same time the government certified Boeing's 787 Dreamliners as safe, federal rules barred the type of batteries used to power the airliner's electrical systems from being carried as cargo on passenger planes because of the fire risk.
    Now the situation is reversed.
    Dreamliners worldwide were grounded nearly three weeks ago after lithium ion batteries that are part of the planes led to a fire in one plane and smoke in a second. But new rules exempt aircraft batteries from the ban on large lithium ion batteries as cargo on flights by passenger planes.
    In effect, that means the Dreamliner's batteries are now allowed to fly only if they're not attached to a Dreamliner.
    The regulations were published on Jan. 7, the same day as a battery fire in a Japan Airlines 787 parked at Boston's Logan International Airport that took firefighters nearly 40 minutes to put out. The timing of the two events appears coincidental.
    Pilots and safety advocates say the situation doesn't make sense. If the 787's battery system is too risky to allow the planes to fly, then it's too risky to ship the same batteries as cargo on airliners, they said.
    "These incidents have raised the whole issue of lithium batteries and their use in aviation," said Jim Hall, a former National Transportation Safety Board chairman. "Any transport of lithium batteries on commercial aircraft for any purpose should be suspended until (an) NTSB investigation is complete and we know more about this entire issue."
    Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, a former US Airways pilot famed for his precision flying that enabled passengers and crew to survive an emergency landing on the Hudson River in New York, said in an interview that he wouldn't be comfortable flying an airliner that carried lithium ion aircraft batteries in its cargo hold.
    "The potential for self-ignition, for uncontained fires, is huge," he said. The new regulations "need to be looked at very hard in the cold light of day, particularly with what has happened with the 787 batteries."
    The battery rules were changed in order to conform U.S. shipping requirements with international standards as required by Congress, the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said in a statement.
    The International Civil Aviation Organization, a U.N. agency that sets global aviation standards, adopted the aircraft battery cargo exemption in October 2011, and it went into effect Jan. 1. The organization's standards normally aren't binding. But a provision inserted into U.S. law at the behest of the battery industry and their shippers says the rules can't be stricter than the U.N. agency's standards.
    Previously, U.S. regulations prohibited the shipment of lithium ion batteries on passenger planes in packages weighing more than 11 pounds, although heavier batteries could be shipped on cargo planes.
    The new rules allow the shipment of lithium ion batteries weighing a.....................................

    more.............................................. ...

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/ap-exc.../feed/2068912?

  3. #83
    Captain Birdie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Changi Airport
    Posts
    645
    Shocked to learn the Battery was wrongly wired.

    I am wondering - how much compensations Boeing has to pay to all the airlines who grounded their B787 ?

  4. #84
    Super Moderator speedbird1960's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Runcorn / LPL
    Posts
    1,877

    Boeing 787 faces new risk: limits on extended range - sources

    (Reuters) - As Boeing works to regain permission for its 787 Dreamliner to resume flights, the company faces what could be a costly new challenge: a temporary ban on some of the long-distance, trans-ocean journeys that the jet was intended to fly.

    Aviation experts and government officials say the Federal Aviation Administration may shorten the permitted flying time of the 787 on certain routes when it approves a revamped battery system.

    Read More: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/0...92Q00C20130327
    AMS Daily Fight Information: http://schiphol.dutchplanespotters.nl/

  5. #85
    Super Moderator speedbird1960's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Runcorn / LPL
    Posts
    1,877

    FAA approves the improvements to the 787 battery

    The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration approves the improvements to the 787 battery systems

    Visionary design, exceptional innovation, unrivaled passenger comfort – the 787 Dreamliner was created to provide a revolutionary flying experience. On April 19th, 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration approved the improvements to the 787 battery systems. With this approval, the Dreamliner will be back in service and soaring once again.

    http://787updates.newairplane.com/FA...textual-Boeing
    AMS Daily Fight Information: http://schiphol.dutchplanespotters.nl/

  6. #86
    Captain
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    FR24 Feeder
    Posts
    1,232
    United's 787 Flying today.

    Flight: UA6850
    Aircraft: Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner (B788)
    Hex: A2CA5F
    FlightAware Info: Los Angeles Intl (KLAX) to Lackland Afb Arpt (KSKF)
    http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/N27903

  7. #87
    Purser
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    129
    Just spotted Qatar Airways A7-BCK has "escaped" Heathrow and at this time, 06:33GMT, is over France with no destination shown.
    Seems a strange way to get to Doha from London?

  8. #88
    First officer LN-MOW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Coal Mountain GA
    Posts
    279
    Could be going to another modification center. Some of the operators are helping each other out facilitating the Boeing AOG Teams.

  9. #89
    Purser
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    129
    It disappeared from FR24 just north of Egypt but it looked as if it was heading toward Doha eventually.
    Meanwhile, 2 more have taken to the skies;
    N787FT is heading West from Albuquerque as flight BOE005
    Flight BOE5 (no tail number) is also heading West from Albuquerque for Kona (Hawaii).
    I wonder if they are actually the same aircraft? One is a live target while the other is the FAA delayed version.

  10. #90
    Purser
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    129
    It has been interesting watching this aircraft over the last couple of days.
    Yesterday it was going in small circles over the Pacific and today it seems to be doing traffic cop duty, following Interstate 5 from San Francisco to Los Angeles at 10,000' and at a sedate 180mph.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •