AAIB: Batteries did not cause Ethiopian 787 Event

The UK's Air Accident Investigation Branch sent out a press release essentially exonerating the 787 lithium ion batteries in the smoke/heat/fire incident at Heathrow yesterday.  The aircraft was pulled into a remote hangar where investigators will try and understand what happened and why.

Thus far there has been a lot of speculation but we do know that there was smoke throughout the cabin and heat damage in the rear crown area.  The Ethiopian Dreamliner was not equipped with a crew rest area nor where there air conditioning pack in the area of the fire.  There has been speculation that this fire may have been intentionally set and even though the chances are highly remote it has not been discounted.

I do think that the AAIB along with the NTSB and FAA should be able to get to the how and why within a few weeks.  In  the meantime, 787 customers including Ethiopian continue to operate the 787 and Boeing continues production and flight testing.

Here is the text of the AAIB's July 13th press release:

Date: 13 July 2013

Serious Incident to Boeing 787-8, ET-AOP,

at London Heathrow Airport on 12 July 2013

 

 Date & Time: 12 July 2013 at approx 1550 hrs UTC

Location: London Heathrow Airport
Aircraft Type: Boeing 787-8
Operator: Ethiopian Airlines

At approximately 1550 hrs UTC on 12 July 2013 a Boeing 787-8 of Ethiopian Airlines, registration ET-AOP, suffered an event at London Heathrow whilst the aircraft was parked on stand, with no persons on board. The initial witness and physical evidence shows that this event resulted in smoke throughout the fuselage and extensive heat damage in the upper portion of the rear fuselage.

In exercise of his powers the Chief Inspector of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) has ordered that an investigation into this serious incident be carried out, in accordance with the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996 and the Standards and Recommended Practices of Annex 13 of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). The sole objective of the investigation is to determine the causal and contributory factors of this serious incident, with the intention of preventing a recurrence. It is not the purpose to apportion blame or liability.

In accordance with these international standards and recommended practices, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), USA, representing the State of Design and Manufacture, and the Civil Aviation Authority of Ethiopia, representing the State of Registry and Operator, have been invited to appoint Accredited Representatives to participate in the investigation, along with advisors from the Federal Aviation Administration, Boeing Commercial Airplanes and Ethiopian Airlines. The AAIB has also invited the participation of the EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) and the UK CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) as advisors to the investigation.

This team, under the direction of the AAIB, has initiated the technical investigation into the event. The aircraft is currently located in a hangar at London Heathrow. There has been extensive heat damage in the upper portion of the rear fuselage, a complex part of the aircraft, and the initial investigation is likely to take several days. However, it is clear that this heat damage is remote from the area in which the aircraft main and APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) batteries are located, and, at this stage, there is no evidence of a direct causal relationship.

Ethiopian 787 fire update

UPDATE: saw this on avherald.com if true then Boeing may have caught a break:

The aircraft fire is unrelated to the batteries. This will be confirmed tomorrow in a boeing press conference. Fire is strongly believed to be as a result of galley overheat - failure of coffee heater trip switch which was left on.Burnt out much of the galley and area above causing deep damage to aft bh and rudder/elevator system. Aircraft sadly a write off - unless pride of hull loss/p.r dictates repair even if economically un-viable."

Thus far there is still no word on what may have sparked the fire on ZA261 (LN 44, ET-AOP) but investigators from the UK's AAIB (Air Accident Investigation Branch) with NTSB and FAA personnel to support (along with Boeing) are enroute to London to begin the formal investigation into the fire.

The events in London, this afternoon, has not had an effect of 787 operations around the world.  Indeed, airlines continue to operate the aircraft in revenue service but are keeping a close eye on event at Heathrow.

Boeing continue production testing of the 787s at Everett with two flights today: ZA468 (LN 116, A7-BCG) and ZA186 (LN 105, JA832J).  I'll update the blog as more information becomes available.


Full 787 List

Current 787 Production List

Delivered 787 List

787 Monthly Delivery Tracking

787 Customer Delivery

 

FAA says 787 decision to some "soon" and are re-examing ETOPS certification

FAA chief Mike Huerta, testified yesterday that the FA has all the documentation that Boeing has submitted to re-certify the 787 lithium ion batteries and that a decision will come soon but they won't be rushed into a decision.  He said that the FAA will approve it when "we are satisfied Boeing has shown the redesigned battery system meets FAA requirements."  Boeing is ready to go and start implementing the modifications once the FAA has signed off which may come as early as this week.  Several carriers (Qatar Airways and Ethiopian) have said that they plan to resume 787 revenue service as early as this month.  ANA and JAL are expecting a return to service next month and United expects to be flying again late in May. No word on when LOT Polish, LAN, or Air India will return to service though expect that by mid June they will all be flying the 787 again.

On fly in the ointment is the FAA's review of the 787's ETOPS 180 certification.  This is being done independent of the battery certification.  I'm not sure what the basis of the ETOPs review (other than the battery issue) is on.  If the basis of the review is solely on the battery issue, then I do expect that the FAA should re-affirm the ETOPS 180 certification as the battery containment system will add a level of safety to the airplane in the event of a thermal runaway in the battery such that it won't bring down the aircraft and should allow the aircraft enough time to divert to an airport.

It also seems to me that if Boeing wants to certify the 787 for ETOPs 330 they will need to run new certification flights for that purpose using the battery and the new containment system in different failure modes. Given that the 787-9 launch customer, Air New Zealand, requires ETOPs 330 when they take delivery, I expect that these tests will take place by the end of the year or very early in the 1st quarter of 2014.

Is there a chance that the FAA can restrict the 787s ability to fly ETOPS (either partially or fully)? Absolutely. Will they do it is another question but I am sure Boeing is in communication with them on this issue as well as ETOPs 330.

I still do expect that Boeing will resume deliveries by middle to late May if the approval is given soon (this week) but there probably are political considerations for the FAA before the approval is given. We'll see.  Scott Hamilton expects approval after the NTSB hearings on the 787 battery certification that is to take place on April 23-24.

 

787 Return to Service now in the hands of the FAA

On Friday April 5th Boeing conducted the one and only certification test flight on ZA272 (LN 86, SP-LRC) for their proposed fix to the lithium ion battery issues that have bought worldwide 787 to a halt.  Boeing had already conducted the ground test of the battery containment system on ZA005 (LN 5, N787FT).  In that test the battery was intentionally short circuited to allow a thermal runway to occur thus testing the ability of the new containment system to prevent smoke, flame and electrolytes from escaping thus risking the aircraft and passengers.

The test flight which lasted about 2 hours is the final items that needed by the FAA in order for order for them to certify the battery fix.  In the next few days Boeing will turn over all the remaining data that is needed. The FAA and Boeing will have a continuous dialogue over the next few weeks and the FAA may even require more tests before giving its approval but the general consensus is that the FAA will give its approval to the fix and approve of Boeing's Service Bulletin & amend the emergency Airworthiness Directive it issued in mid January grounding the 787.  Boeing has teams in place to start implementing the fix once the FAA (and other international aviation regulators like Japan's JCAB and Europe's EASA) have approved. 

The fix will take 4 to 5 days to install on each aircraft though I think it's reasonable to assume that multiple aircraft will be worked on at the same time.  Assuming that Boeing has (according to reports in the media) 8 teams ready to implement the fix along with the associated hardware at the ready, it will take Boeing about 6 weeks to return all 50 delivered 787s to service.  If the approval is given by middle of April then it is reasonable to assume that the 50 787s that are grounded can resume regular revenue service by early June depending on the individual airline's readiness to do so.

So how long until deliveries begin? Boeing will have 30+ 787s ready for delivery but waiting for the battery fix to be installed. I don't have any information as to how many of these service ready 787s can be modified each week but I think it is reasonable to assume that Boeing can have up to 3 ready each week to continue the standard pre delivery ground and flight test regimen once the FAA has given its approval. I am also assuming that Boeing will start ground and flight tests from scratch given the new equipment that is being installed would also need to be tested out on each aircraft.  Thus I'm assuming about 5 weeks for all pre-delivery ground and flight tests to be conducted prior to delivery.  This would translate to roughly 6 weeks before Boeing resumes regular 787 deliveries.  This would mean that deliveries can resume as early as the beginning of June.  It still uncertain how many 787s Boeing can deliver this year until deliveries actually re-start and the rate of battery modifications are determined but at the moment they're maintaining their 787 delivery guidance at 60+.  It is still possible to reach that goal but it would mean that Boeing will have to undertake an aggressive rate of production testing on the 30+ 787s that are on the lines at Everett and Charleston.

An added complication are the NTSB hearings scheduled for the second half of April concerning the lithium ion battery technology as well as the FAA's certification of the 787's battery system along with Senate hearings into the FAA approval process for the 787.  While I don't expect any earth shattering news out of any of these three hearings pundits wondered aloud if these hearings will have any bearing on the timing of FAA approval, with some saying that the FAA won't give its approval until after the hearings are done. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood even said that the fix that Boeing has proposed appears to be good.  Whenever the FAA gives its decision, it does appear that Boeing in on the verge of overcoming yet another issue related to the Dreamliner.

 

Boeing expects a couple of weeks to finish certification testing of 787 battery fix

Boeing is expecting a pretty short testing period for their proposed battery fix though the FAA could mandate more tests.  Boeing needs to conduct only one test flight with the proposed fix on ZA272 (LN 86, SP-LRC).  ZA005 (LN 5, N787FT) will conduct ground tests of the fix. Both aircraft are in the process of being retrofitted with the battery fix.  Boeing has told me that it takes about 4 to 5 days to remove the old lithium ion battery set up and install the new battery assembly for both the main and APU battery. Boeing has declined to reveal how many ground and flight test hours will be needed to finish testing though Ron Hinderberger, Boeing Vice President, 787-8 Engineering says the current plan calls for only one test flight of the upgrade system on ZA272.  The total ground and flight tests should be no more than a couple of weeks though the FAA can mandate additional testing.  It is the FAA who will the final say in this matter. Boeing is pretty confident of the fix because of the testing and work performed in their integrated systems labs but many of these test will have to be re-performed under the oversight of the FAA.  Boeing said that about 1/3 of the required FAA testing is already completed.

Once the FAA has given it's sign off then Boeing will act aggressively to get the fix installed on the 50 787s that currently in customer hands.  I would expect that there will be multiple Boeing teams at different locations working concurrently to do the retrofit which, as mentioned earlier, will take 4 to 5 days per airplane.

Much has been made that the root cause of the battery incidents has not been discovered and that Boeing and the FAA are rushing this.  However, there is precedent for this type of actions since the evidence pointing to the root cause was probably destroyed.  When TWA Flight 800 exploded of Long Island's South Shore there were many theories that abounded but the NTSB pinned the blame on fuel vapors in the center wing fuel tank that were ignited by a spark.  There was no direct evidence of that but the result of their findings was that the FAA required some sort of fuel inerting systems to be retrofitted and that new aircraft designs have a an inerting system designed into the center wing fuel tank.  All this on an aircraft accident that did not have a root cause.  Here Boeing is taking action that would address any potential failures in the battery and severely mitigate the risk f a fire from ever happening by siphoning off any oxygen surrounding the battery.

Thus with its reputation out on the line, Boeing Commercial Airplane Head, Ray Conner and Chief Engineer, Mike Sinnett explained, in detail, Boeing's proposed solution and why they have confidence in it. The briefing in Tokyo was very technical in nature and very through.  Here Boeing revealed that they expect that they can be done testing and start implementation of the fix in weeks and not in months.  They qualified those remarks by stating that the FAA has the final say in lifting the airworthiness directive that lead to the grounding.  One bit of news that is interesting is that Boeing will not lose the 180 ETOPS certification once the FAA has signed off on the fix.  They still intend to achieve ETOPS 330 for the 787 though it is uncertain if the FAA will add any more tests for that certification because of the battery issues.

Boeing is rumored to already be producing parts for the retrofit on the 50 aircraft that are in customer hands as well as the 25 siting at Charleston and Everett as well as the aircraft that are in various stages of production.  If Boeing can meet the schedule it has laid out to the FAA and get the testing done in weeks, I would expect the FA to take it's time in analyzing the data and perhaps ordering further tests.  The 50 787s may not resume passenger flights for another 4 to 6 weeks (that includes the retrofit time).  Deliveries probably will resume around the end of May but it ll depends on the FAA and how stringent they plan on being.

 

FAA approves Boeing's 787 recovery plan

Today the FAA announced that they approved of Boeing's re-certification plan for the lithium ion batteries made by GS Yuasa of Japan.  The FAA will be looking over Boeing's shoulder every step of the way. This is obviously in reaction to the criticism that the agency received in light of the certification of the 787 and the lithium ion batteries in particular.

Boeing will be using two airframes to conduct the tests: ZA005 (LN 5, N787FT) and ZA272 (LN 86, SP-LRC) a 787 that is destined for LOT Polish Airlines.  I do expect that test flights should start by Thursday, Friday at the absolute latest.  Boeing has approval to conduct the flights on only two 787s and they may need to conduct more test flights if the FAA says they need more data.

There is no word on how long the re-certification program will take but it will encompass both ground and flight tests.  Boeing gave a very detailed plan and the FAA has given their feedback in terms of the parameters and tests that have to be met in order for the the lifting of the airworthiness directive.

To be sure this plan will probably take some time to complete to the FAA's satisfaction and because of all the negative publicity surrounding the battery and the FAA's oversight I wouldn't be surprised if the testing and reviews takes up to two months before the airworthiness directive is lifted. 
Additionally, when the NTSB came out with their preliminary results of the fire investigation on the JAL 787 in Boston, they announced that they will have two hearings in April, one covering the use of lithium ion batteries and one covering the design and certification of the 78 battery system.  You can be sure that both Boeing and the FAA will get a lot of heat at both these hearings and will certainly increase the pressure on both organizations. You can access the JAL 787 docket here.

So what does this mean for the resumption of flights and deliveries.  Assuming that the FAA is happy with the testing and the results, I can see revenue flights starting again in about 2 months time.  That would be around the middle of May.  Boeing has already been producing the necessary kits for the battery modifications though I'm not sure how long it wold take to modify the aircraft.  The modifications does involve cutting a vent hole in the CRFP skin of the aircraft.  Additionally Boeing will have to modify the 25 (and counting) 787s at Everett and Charleston as well retrofit those that are further back in the production backlog.  Once the undelivered aircraft have been retrofitted they can resume the standard ground and flight test regime that Boeing and customers put each airframe through before the aircraft is formally handed over.  I can see deliveries resuming around the middle of June though I cannot venture a guess as to how many they will be able to deliver.  Boeing will have its work cut out for it if they are to deliver more than 60 787s this year.  They would need to deliver 10/month in order to accomplish that.  It's doable but will require a lot of resources to decrease the built up inventory being stored.

Here's Boeing's statement from this afternoon:

News Release Issued: March 12, 2013 5:00 PM EDT

Boeing Receives FAA Approval of Certification Plan for 787 Battery Solution

EVERETT, Wash., March 12, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Boeing (NYSE: BA) has received approval from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the company's plan to test and certify improvements to the 787's battery system. Successful completion of each step within the plan will result in the FAA's approval to resume commercial 787 flights.

"Our top priority is the integrity of our products and the safety of the passengers and crews who fly on them," said Boeing Chairman, President and CEO Jim McNerney. "Our team has been working around the clock to understand the issues and develop a solution based on extensive analysis and testing following the events that occurred in January. Today's approval from the FAA is a critical and welcome milestone toward getting the fleet flying again and continuing to deliver on the promise of the 787," he said.  

Ray Conner, president and chief executive officer of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said that the company's focus has been on developing a permanent resolution.

"Working with internal and external experts in battery technology, we have proposed a comprehensive set of solutions designed to significantly minimize the potential for battery failure while ensuring that no battery event affects the continued safe operation of the airplane," said Conner.

"Our proposal includes three layers of improvements. First, we've improved design features of the battery to prevent faults from occurring and to isolate any that do. Second, we've enhanced production, operating and testing processes to ensure the highest levels of quality and performance of the battery and its components. Third, in the unlikely event of a battery failure, we've introduced a new enclosure system that will keep any level of battery overheating from affecting the airplane or being noticed by passengers," Conner said.

Design feature improvements for the battery include the addition of new thermal and electrical insulation materials and other changes. The enhanced production and testing processes include more stringent screening of battery cells prior to battery assembly. Operational improvements focus on tightening of the system's voltage range. A key feature of the new enclosure is that it ensures that no fire can develop in the enclosure or in the battery. Additional details of the new design will be provided by Boeing in the days ahead.

Boeing made its certification plan proposal to the FAA in late February. Today the agency agreed that the proposed changes and the detailed test plans address the conditions that resulted in the suspension of 787 operations.

The FAA also granted Boeing permission to begin flight test activities on two airplanes: line number 86, which will conduct tests to demonstrate that the comprehensive set of solutions work as intended in flight and on the ground; and ZA005, which is scheduled to conduct engine improvement tests unrelated to the battery issue. Additional testing may be scheduled as needed.

The certification plan calls for a series of tests that show how the improved battery system will perform in normal and abnormal conditions. The test plans were written based on the FAA's standards as well as applicable guidelines published by the Radio Technical Commission on Aeronautics (RTCA), an advisory committee that provides recommendations on ways to meet regulatory requirements. The RTCA guidelines were not available when the original 787 battery certification plan was developed. 

"We have a great deal of confidence in our solution set and the process for certifying it," said Conner. "Before 787s return to commercial service, our customers and their passengers want assurance that the improvements being introduced will make this great airplane even better. That's what this test program will do."

The FAA also released the following:

Press Release – FAA Approves Boeing 787 Certification Plan

For Immediate Release

March 12, 2013
Contact: Laura J. Brown
Phone: (202) 267-3455

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.

“This comprehensive series of tests will show us whether the proposed battery improvements will work as designed,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We won’t allow the plane to return to service unless we’re satisfied that the new design ensures the safety of the aircraft and its passengers.”

The battery system improvements include a redesign of the internal battery components to minimize initiation of a short circuit within the battery, better insulation of the cells and the addition of a new containment and venting system.

“We are confident the plan we approved today includes all the right elements to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the battery system redesign,” said FAA Administrator Michael P. Huerta. “Today’s announcement starts a testing process which will demonstrate whether the proposed fix will work as designed.”

The certification plan requires a series of tests which must be passed before the 787 could return to service. The plan establishes specific pass/fail criteria, defines the parameters that should be measured, prescribes the test methodology and specifies the test setup and design. FAA engineers will be present for the testing and will be closely involved in all aspects of the process.

The FAA also has approved limited test flights for two aircraft. These aircraft will have the prototype versions of the new containment system installed. The purpose of the flight tests will be to validate the aircraft instrumentation for the battery and battery enclosure testing in addition to product improvements for other systems.

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.

Already the FAA is confident of the plan that Boeing submitted and the FAA approved thus the stakes are being set with a lot on the line with regards to the re-certification program.  Boeing and the FAA cannot afford to get this wrong.

 

Boeing presents battery solution to FAA, FAA says no flights until they are satisfied

Boeing 787 program managers lead by BCA Chief met with FAA leaders lead by FAA Chief Mike Huerta to listen to Boeing's plan to fix the battery issues in order to return the 787 to flight status.

News reports say that this is not an interim fix but a permanent fix to mitigate problems that may arise if there was another short circuit and thermal runaway in the cells of the battery.

Boeing proposed changes includes (according to media reports):

1) A fire proof case to house the the eight cells of the battery to contain any smoke and fire from the rest of the electrical and electronics in the two E/E Bays

2) Venting of any smoke and gases out of the aircraft through pipes installed in the new case.  This is to ensure that smoke does not get into the cockpit or the cabin

3) Wider spacing between the the eight individual cells and ceramic partitions between the cells

4) Enhanced and improve monitoring of the cells with information presented to the pilots throughout all phases of flight on each of the battery cells.

5) New battery monitoring procedure to be performed by the pilots before, during and after each flight.

Boeing says that they have had made good progress on addressing the battery issues and that today's meeting was "productive" (whatever that means). but the blunt statement by the FAA tells it all:

Deputy Transportation Secretary John Porcari, FAA Administrator Michael P. Huerta and other FAA officials met with senior executives from The Boeing Company today to discuss the status of ongoing work to address 787 battery issues. The FAA is reviewing a Boeing proposal and will analyze it closely. 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.

The FAA is certainly not going to give Boeing a pass on this and given that the NTSB still has not determined the root cause of the short circuiting, the FAA is going to look over their proposal and more than likely have additional conditions and tests that Boeing will have to carry out. 

A good thing is that Boeing has been in constant contact with the FAA about the investigation and their plans but it is still the FAA's decision whether to accept Boeing's plan and allow them to test and certify the fixes.

According to the reports that have been circulating for the past couple of days, Boeing is planning to get the testing, certification and fixes implemented so that the world wide fleet of 787s can resume flying by around late March to April.

So while the FAA is drawing a hardline (as evidenced by their statement today) they will undoubtedly take into account a couple of things:

1) Root cause of the short circuiting has not been determined and may not ever be known
2) The batteries, until January, did not exhibit any short circuiting and thermal runaway issues.
3) There is a substantial economic loss both a t the carriers that have the aircraft and at Boeing

Given the above, the FAA will probably move to allow Boeing to test and certify the fixes but I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing and GS Yuasa, the maker of the lithium ion battery look to make changes to the design to enhance the safe operation of the cells.

What Boeing is proposing are preventative measures to stop a battery issue from getting out of control.  Without a root cause they cannot address the design of the battery that would prevent a recurrence of the short circuiting and thermal runaway.  This is probably the best option that Boeing currently has and is probably also the most aggressive option.

I do believe that Boeing will be able to return the aircraft to revenue flights but it will not be until late April to mid May before that happens. In the meantime, Everett will add on at least 10 more 787s while Charleston will add 2 to 3 787s to those waiting to be delivered.  I think the FAA will come back with a response to Boeing's proposal fairly quickly (within the next one week).

In some good news, the JTSB (Japanese Transport Safety Board) has discovered what caused the the fuel spillage from a JAL 787 on January 9th at Logan International.  It was small piece of FOD (foreign object debris) that prevented the closure of a valve.  During a test on the same aircraft later in January, there was another fuel leak.  The second one was attributable to a micro switch that was painted in a protective coating.  The painting had left behind a small piece of hair from the brush causing the the switch to lock.  Boeing is going to make sure that the micro switches are not painted in the protective coating again.

ZA005 start lithium ion test flights but resumption of 787 revenue flights still a big question mark

As Boeing's GEnx powered 787 initiated test flights to gather data on the operating environment of the aircraft's lithium ion batteries many questions still are circulating not the least which is when will the FAA allow the 787s to resume revenue flights by the world's airlines.

Here's a rundown of the latest news:

Lithium Ion Battery Investigation

The NTSB, in preliminary report, has narrowed down the origin of the fire to cell 6 (of 8) in the battery in the aft E/E bay of ZA183 (LN 84, JA829J).  The thermal runaway ("an uncontrolled chemical reaction at high temperatures") was caused by several short circuits in cell 6 which propagated to the adjacent cells (primarily cells 5, 7, and 8).  Cells 1 through 4 were also damaged but as you can see from the picture above, they weren't damaged as badly as the cells.  The root cause of the short circuiting has yet to be determined but the NTSB is looking at various factors in the search of the root cause.  These factors include design, certification and manufacturing processes of the lithium ion battery. They did rule out external short circuiting as well as any external damage that caused the cell to short circuit.  Investigators will look at battery charging as well as as any other external factors that may have had affected the cell thus the NTSB has a long way to go.

Already though the NTSB is looking at the certification of the battery by the FAA charging that this battery should not have been certified under the special conditions that were set forth.  Additionally, Boeing had predicted, based on their testing, that a smoke event from the lithium ion batteries would occur once in 10,000,000 flight hours.  However, 2 smoke events have occurred in less than 100,000 flight hours across the worldwide 787 fleet.  Thus NTSB Chairperson said that "the failure rate was higher than predicted as part of the certification process and the possibility that a short circuit in a single cell could propagate to adjacent cells and result in smoke and fire must be reconsidered."  Additionally, the NTSB said "During the 787 certification process, Boeing studied possible failures that could occur within the battery. Those assessments included the likelihood of particular types of failures occurring, as well as the effects they could have on the battery. In tests to validate these assessments, Boeing found no evidence of cell-to-cell propagation or fire, both of which occurred in the JAL event."

In other words, the certification process by the FAA and Boeing for the lithium ion batteries is severely flawed and if these batteries are to be used on the 787 then the FAA and Boeing needs to reconsider how these batteries are to be tested along with containment and monitoring along different failure modes because the fire did show cell to cell propagation whereas Boeing testing (and FAA sign off) did not show that it would occur. 

The NTSB will release an interim report in about 4 weeks but it is not known if they would have found the root cause of the battery incident in Boston. Lastly, it'll be interesting to note if the JTSB would find a similar short circuiting cell from the ANA (ZA102, LN 9, JA804A) battery.  Thus far both batteries have shown signs of thermal runaway and short circuiting though the ANA battery did not catch fire.  Still there was significant high temperature damage to that battery.

Here is the press release from the NTSB on Thursday:

NTSB identifies origin of JAL Boeing 787 battery fire; design, certification and manufacturing processes come under scrutiny

February 7, 2013

WASHINGTON - At a news conference today, NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman identified the origin of the Jan. 7 battery fire that occurred on a Japan Airlines 787 parked at Boston Logan Airport, and said that a focus of the investigation will be on the design and certification requirements of the battery system.

"U.S. airlines carry about two million people through the skies safely every day, which has been achieved in large part through design redundancy and layers of defense," said Hersman. "Our task now is to see if enough - and appropriate - layers of defense and adequate checks were built into the design, certification and manufacturing of this battery."

After an exhaustive examination of the JAL lithium-ion battery, which was comprised of eight individual cells, investigators determined that the majority of evidence from the flight data recorder and both thermal and mechanical damage pointed to an initiating event in a single cell. That cell showed multiple signs of short circuiting, leading to a thermal runaway condition, which then cascaded to other cells. Charred battery components indicated that the temperature inside the battery case exceeded 500 degrees Fahrenheit.

As investigators work to find the cause of the initiating short circuit, they ruled out both mechanical impact damage to the battery and external short circuiting. It was determined that signs of deformation and electrical arcing on the battery case occurred as a result of the battery malfunction and were not related to its cause.

Chairman Hersman said that potential causes of the initiating short circuit currently being evaluated include battery charging, the design and construction of the battery, and the possibility of defects introduced during the manufacturing process.

During the 787 certification process, Boeing studied possible failures that could occur within the battery. Those assessments included the likelihood of particular types of failures occurring, as well as the effects they could have on the battery. In tests to validate these assessments, Boeing found no evidence of cell-to-cell propagation or fire, both of which occurred in the JAL event.

The NTSB learned that as part of the risk assessment Boeing conducted during the certification process, it determined that the likelihood of a smoke emission event from a 787 battery would occur less than once in every 10 million flight hours. Noting that there have been two critical battery events on the 787 fleet with fewer than 100,000 flight hours, Hersman said that "the failure rate was higher than predicted as part of the certification process and the possibility that a short circuit in a single cell could propagate to adjacent cells and result in smoke and fire must be reconsidered."

As the investigation continues, which will include testing on some of the batteries that had been replaced after being in service in the 787 fleet, the NTSB will continue to share its findings in real time with the FAA, Boeing, the Japan Transport Safety Board, and the French investigative agency, the Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses.

"The decision to return the fleet to flight will be made by the FAA, which underscores the importance of cooperation and coordination between our agencies," Hersman said.

She also announced that the NTSB would release an interim report of factual findings within 30 days.

Additional information, including a video of the today's media briefing, the PowerPoint presentation, the FAA's Special Conditions for the B-787 battery system, and related documents, can be accessed at http://go.usa.gov/4K4J.

The NTSB will provide additional factual updates as developments warrant. To be alerted to any updates or developments, follow the NTSB on Twitter at www.twitter.com/ntsb.

Resumption of 787 flights

Last Wednesday the FAA gave approval to Boeing to conduct a one off ferry flight of a 787 for China Southern Airlines 787, ZA382 (LN 43, B-2727) that was stuck in Ft. Worth, Texas for painting when the grounding occurred in mid January.  The ferry flight was from Ft. Worth to Everett and had a number of restrictions placed on it to ensure the safety of the flight crew on board.  The aircraft flew to Everett on Thursday and landed among a media circus gathered at Paine Field that evening.  Later that night , the FAA gave approval to Boeing's request to conduct flight tests using ZA005 (LN 5, N787FT) for the purposes of gather data on the lithium ion batteries while in flight.  Boeing will be looking to record data on moisture, vibrations and other environmental factors which may have contributed to the short circuiting of the cell.  Additionally, Boeing is hoping to conduct test on possible containment and venting systems as well as a more robust battery monitoring system to mitigate the risks of another lithium ion battery thermal event.  It is known that Boeing is working on a plan to submit per the FAA's emergency airworthiness directive that forced the 787 grounding. It is rumored that Boeing wold like to have this temporary solution on the customer airplanes and re certify them by the end of March though that may be very optimistic.  Boeing would have to convince the FAA on the soundness of their approach (which is being characterized as interim).  Additionally Boeing can forget, for now, on obtaining ETOPS 330 for the 787 based on the the battery issue as well as the other issues that has caused the FAA to imitate the 787 program review in early January. 

There maybe some one off 787 flights to reposition 787s that are stranded away from the their home bases (like the Polish LOT 787 in Chicago).  I don't have any data on the 787s that are stranded.  Air India conducted several ferry flights from Delhi to Mumbai of their 787s.  In my opinion, I believe the 787s can see a return to flights status around the April to May time frame.  The FAA is not going to rush them back to the air but they won't be 1000% safe as Ray LaHood promises that they will be.

Battery Plan

As mentioned earlier, Boeing is drawing up a plan to return the 787s to flight and to resume deliveries.  The FAA emergency airworthiness directive states "Before further flight, operators of U.S.-registered, Boeing 787 aircraft must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the batteries are safe.
The FAA will work with the manufacturer and carriers to develop a corrective action plan to allow the U.S. 787 fleet to resume operations as quickly and safely as possible."

This leaves a lot of leeway for Boeing to introduce a new battery protocol that would encompass monitoring, containment and venting in to the 787s fleet.  However, given the seriousness of the problem, this plan is being viewed as more of a temporary step with a view that Boeing may have to completely redesign and re certify (under more presumably stringent conditions) the lithium ion batteries.  The redesign and recertification may take up to a year to complete.  Boeing is reiterating that they will continue to use the lithium ion batteries.

Production and Flight Testing

Currently between North Charleston and Everett, Boeing has 19 787s that are complete and need to finish the typical Boeing/customer flight and ground test program that occurs prior to delivery.  There are 15 787s at Everett that are complete and 4 at Boeing Charleston.  Boeing is adding about 1 airplane per week to that total as production is continuing full tilt at both final assembly sites not including 787s coming from the EMC.  At this rate Boeing can double the number (to about 40) of 787s parked at both Charleston and Everett by the end of May if there isn't progress on the battery issue and a restart of deliveries.  Boeing is planning to deliver at least 9 re-worked 787s in 2013 along with about 55 or more non re-worked airplanes in 2013.   Some customers have already been alerted that near term deliveries will be delayed but I believe that the delays may extended into the summer due to the grounding.  If there is an extended grounding, Boeing may free up room around Everett by conducting the B-1 flights of 747s, 777s, and 767s from Everett but have them land at Boeing Field to finish the testing and delivery process.  This way spots can open up at Everett for more 787s that have to be parked.  Additionally there is room at the tower ramp, Runway 11/29 and the south ramp area at Everett.  On a brighter note, Boeing was able to finalize the order for 42 787s with American Airlines this past week.  That firm order will comprise of 20 787-8 and 22 787-9 plus 58 options which would encompass all 787 derivatives.  The first one is to be delivered in November 2014...about 21 months from now.

Bankruptcy Judge OK's AMR's Purchase of 787

A Federal Bankruptcy judge approved of AMR's revised contracts for aircraft purchases today.  This now clears the way for the airline to finalize the 787 contract with Boeing.  The revised contract now pushes deliveries of the first 787s to November of 2014 and splits to order of 42 aircraft roughly in half: 20 787-8 and 22 787-9.  AMR also has 58 options on the 787 but there is no word on when those options expire.

In other news, the JTSB is now saying that the lithium-ion battery on the ANA 787 was not overcharged and had, in fact, seen its voltage drop to almost zero according to the flight data recorders.  This is similar to the JAL 787 incident except there wasn't a fire.  The JTSB is now going to be looking at other components that may have contributed to the incident similar to what the NTSB is doing.

787 battery investigation continuing but not sure when Dreamliners will fly again.

As the NTSB and the Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) conduct separate but loosely coordinated investigations into the two 787 battery incident's, there is still uncertainty about when the 787s will return to the skies.

The NTSB announced on January 20th that the battery on the JAL 787 in Boston did not exceed the 32 volts it was designed to handle.  This statement seems to indicate that the NTSB does not consider the lithium-ion battery the culprit in the JAL fire and is looking at other components of the battery system including the charger.  The JTSB investigators have suggested that the issue on the ANA 787 was due to the battery being over-charged. 

Here's the text of the NTSB's latest statement:

NTSB Provides Third Investigative Update on Boeing 787 Battery Fire in Boston

January 20

WASHINGTON - The National Transportation Safety Board today released a third update on its investigation into the Jan. 7 fire aboard a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 at Logan International Airport in Boston.

The lithium-ion battery that powered the auxiliary power unit has been examined in the NTSB Materials Laboratory in Washington. The battery was x-rayed and CT scans were generated of the assembled battery. The investigative team has disassembled the APU battery into its eight individual cells for detailed examination and documentation. Three of the cells were selected for more detailed radiographic examination to view the interior of the cells prior to their disassembly. These cells are in the process now of being disassembled and the cell's internal components are being examined and documented.

Investigators have also examined several other components removed from the airplane, including wire bundles and battery management circuit boards. The team has developed test plans for the various components removed from the aircraft, including the battery management unit (for the APU battery), the APU controller, the battery charger and the start power unit. On Tuesday, the group will convene in Arizona to test and examine the battery charger and download nonvolatile memory from the APU controller. Several other components have been sent for download or examination to Boeing's facility in Seattle and manufacturer's facilities in Japan.

Finally, examination of the flight recorder data from the JAL B-787 airplane indicate that the APU battery did not exceed its designed voltage of 32 volts.

In accordance with international investigative treaties, the Japan Transport Safety Board and French Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la sécurité de l'aviation civile have appointed accredited representatives to this investigation. Similarly, the NTSB has assigned an accredited representative to assist with the JTSB's investigation of the Jan. 15 battery incident involving an All Nippon Airways B-787. Both investigations remain ongoing.

Further investigative updates on the JAL B-787 incident will be issued as events warrant. To be alerted to any updates or developments, please follow the NTSB on Twitter at www.twitter.com/ntsb.

This may indicated that the battery system on the 787 may suffer from not one but two different issues and may pose a difficult challenge for Boeing to get the airplanes flying again.

Boeing is pushing to get the airplanes back in the sky and have indicated to customers that they have a plan in work to present to the FAA.  Given that the investigation in Japan and the US have not concluded the root cause of either incident nor has the FAA signed off on any corrective measures, one has to deduce that the Boeing plan is more of a temporary preventative measure which would entail frequent checks of the battery system rather than any permanent fix or redesign of the battery system.

Despite all the publicity surrounding the battery issue, Boeing's 787 customers see no changes in the delivery plans despite Boeing's hold on deliveries. Norwegian says they still expect their first 787 to be delivered in April (on lease from ILFC) according to information provided to them by Boeing.  Meanwhile Boeing continues 787 production with another 787 entering final assembly on January 23.  The Everett and Charleston flightlines will be filling up quickly and Boeing maybe hard-pressed to clear that backlog when they have the green light to fly the 787 again but it will all depend on what the NTSB and the FAA have to say at the end.

I anticpate some good news for the 787 program tomorrow.  A bankruptcy judge in New York is expected to have a hearing on the restructured (renegotiated) aircraft purchase contracts that American Airlines will present.  I think it may be approved tomorrow and if so then Boeing can add 42 787s (20 787-8 and 22 787-9) to their backlog by the end of this week.

FAA temporarily ground US-based 787s, foreign based 787s to follow suit

The FAA, this evening, ordered a temporary grounding of US-based 787s due to the continuing Lithium Ion battery issues.  The precipitating event was the leakage of the battery's caustic electrolytes in the forward E/E bay of ZA102 (LN 9, JA804A) during the flight in Japan yesterday.  According to Dominic Gates, in an article posted this evening, battery fluid sprayed out to distance of 12 feet away from the battery.   The electrolytes are flammable and could have easily started a fire in the lower bay.  Some of the spray was vented overboard through an outflow valve. The FAA had issues an emergency airworthiness directive requiring the grounding and inspection of all US-based 787s.  Typically other countries follow the FAA or EASA lead when they issue such directives and it is expected that other aviation regulators in the countries that fly the 787s will also ground the aircraft and follow the FAA's lead on the next actions.  The other countries include Ethiopia, Japan, India, Qatar, Chile and Poland. Japan, Poland, Qatar and Chile has already announced the grounding of the 787s under their authority and I do expect that Chile and India will follow very soon.

Here is the text of the FAA statement:

As a result of an in-flight, Boeing 787 battery incident earlier today in Japan, the FAA will issue an emergency airworthiness directive (AD) to address a potential battery fire risk in the 787 and require operators to temporarily cease operations.  Before further flight, operators of U.S.-registered, Boeing 787 aircraft must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the batteries are safe.    

The FAA will work with the manufacturer and carriers to develop a corrective action plan to allow the U.S. 787 fleet to resume operations as quickly and safely as possible.

The in-flight Japanese battery incident followed an earlier 787 battery incident that occurred on the ground in Boston on January 7, 2013. The AD is prompted by this second incident involving a lithium ion battery.  The battery failures resulted in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke on two Model 787 airplanes.  The root cause of these failures is currently under investigation.  These conditions, if not corrected, could result in damage to critical systems and structures, and the potential for fire in the electrical compartment.

Last Friday, the FAA announced a comprehensive review of the 787’s critical systems with the possibility of further action pending new data and information.  In addition to the continuing review of the aircraft’s design, manufacture and assembly, the agency also will validate that 787 batteries and the battery system on the aircraft are in compliance with the special condition the agency issued as part of the aircraft’s certification.

United Airlines is currently the only U.S. airline operating the 787, with six airplanes in service. When the FAA issues an airworthiness directive, it also alerts the international aviation community to the action so other civil aviation authorities can take parallel action to cover the fleets operating in their own countries.

Here is the text of Boeing's statement:

Boeing Chairman, President and CEO Jim McNerney issued the following statement today after the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued an emergency airworthiness directive that requires U.S. 787 operators to temporarily cease operations and recommends other regulatory agencies to follow suit:
"The safety of passengers and crew members who fly aboard Boeing airplanes is our highest priority.
"Boeing is committed to supporting the FAA and finding answers as quickly as possible. The company is working around the clock with its customers and the various regulatory and investigative authorities. We will make available the entire resources of The Boeing Company to assist.
"We are confident the 787 is safe and we stand behind its overall integrity. We will be taking every necessary step in the coming days to assure our customers and the traveling public of the 787's safety and to return the airplanes to service.
"Boeing deeply regrets the impact that recent events have had on the operating schedules of our customers and the inconvenience to them and their passengers."

Thus the FAA is requiring the operators to prove to the FAA that the batteries are safe to operate on their flights. I expect that other aviation regulatory agencies will require the same of the 787 operators registered in their own countries.

It is not known how long the 787s will be out of service but as a point of reference, the FAA grounded the DC-10 in 1979 after a horrific crash of an American Airlines DC-10 in Chicago.  Those airplanes were grounded for a month.  The seriousness of this battery issue is not fully understood at this time but it may not last as long as a month. 

The maker of the battery, GS Yuasa of Japan is under a lot of pressure to figure out what is happening with their batteries.  Everything will be examined including the manufacturing of the cells themselves as well as potential flaws in the design.  Solutions may include switching to a different type of battery, perhaps Ni-Cads but I'm not sure if that is feasible.

In terms of production, I don't believe that Boeing will stop production and assembly of the 787 though they will not be able to carry out any test flights until they are cleared to do so by the FAA.  The ramps at Everett and Charleston will fill up if the emergency AD lasts more than a month.  What is not known is how this will affect the planned ramp up of the 787s later this year.

One area that may see an effect is the on going labor negotiations between Boeing management and SPEEA.  Already SPEEA has flowated the idea of extending the already expired contract. According the the proposal from SPEEA's web site, they propose to roll the items to which both sides have agreed to into the existing contract and extending the current contract another four years.  Boeing may be advised to take this offer as they can ill aford a strike at this juncture.  Here's the text from SPEEA's web site:

With the desire to focus all attention on solving the emergent issues with the 787, 
the SPEEA Professional and Technical Negotiation Teams today (Jan. 16) the union representing engineers and technical workers today (Jan. 16) proposed incorporating areas of agreement from ongoing negotiations into existing contracts and extending our Boeing contracts for another four years.

This “best and final” offer by SPEEA, IFPTE Local 2001, was presented as negotiations with Boeing resumed at 1 p.m. with the assistance of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) at the SeaTac Hilton. 

SPEEA’s unprecedented offer would free Boeing and 23,000 engineers and technical workers from protracted and increasingly contentious negotiations that appear headed for a strike. It also allows the company and our technical workforce to focus on 
reaffirming confidence and proving the 787 
is the reliable and safe product employees know it to be. Completing negotiations also helps Boeing stay focused on supporting customers, engineering the 767 tanker, 737 MAX, increasing 737 and 777 production rates and the other products needed for our national defense.

“These negotiations have been going on for more than a year,” said Tom McCarty, SPEEA president and Professional Team member. “At this point, we should move forward with the items upon which we can agree, and leave the status quo in place for the remaining items.”

In addition to the proposed contract extension, SPEEA requested that Boeing continue to meet under the auspices of FMCS mediation to tackle the difficult issues that have proven so divisive in these negotiations.

“Our hope is that we can work collaboratively to find solutions in a data-rich environment outside of the constraints of the collective bargaining process” said Ryan Rule, Professional Team member. 

In making the proposal, SPEEA agreed to accept Boeing’s funding mechanism for the Ed Wells Partnership training program.  The status quo proposal continues to offset company medical costs through annual deductible increases based on salary growth.  To put to rest the pension issue, a major point of contention, SPEEA proposes to accept the same pension proposal that Boeing negotiated with the International Association of Machinists (IAM District 751). Finally, the contract extension offer is made with the understanding Boeing recognizes same-sex survivor pension benefits pursuant to Washington state law. 

“With our contracts put to rest, we can all roll up our sleeves and work the issues facing the 787 and Boeing,” said Sandy Hastings, Technical Team member. “SPEEA members know this is a great airplane, and we are eager to prove this to our customers, the flying public and the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration).”

SPEEA and Boeing started meeting in April to negotiate new contracts for 15,550 engineers and 7,400 technical workers. In October, engineers rejected Boeing’s initial offer by 95.5 percent. Technical workers rejected the company’s offer by 97 percent.  Existing contracts expired Nov. 25. Since resuming talks Jan. 9 after a month-long FMCS-imposed recess, members increased preparations for a possible strike. A 40-day strike in 2000 by SPEEA stopped deliveries and caused major factory and service bottlenecks at Boeing plants around the country.

The issues facing the 787 are extremely serious but they can be overcome.  The biggest hit will be to the 787s reputation and reliability.  Boeing will need to focus 110% of its talent and resources on fixing these issues and demonstrating that the 787 is a safe aircraft not just to their customers but to the traveling public.  I do hope that the FAA initiated review will get to the bottom of these problems and find solutions to them.  In the meantime, I'll continue to track the production of the 787 but I don't expect to see flights for another few weeks.

FAA to carry out detailed review of 787 electrical system,Boeing to continue to produce, assemble and deliver Dreamliners during review

The FAA and Boeing announced that the government will carry out a detailed review of the design, manufacture, and assembly of the electrical and power distribution systems abroad the 787.

Boeing has told me that this review does not affect the production, assembly and delivery of the 787s nor does it ground the 787s currently in service. Boeing did conduct a ferry flight of one 787 to Charleston after being painted in Ft. Worth and had planned to do a first flight of another 787 today (put off to tomorrow probably). Thus Boeing continues with operations as usual and the operators continue to fly the aircraft. today ANA did initiate service between San Jose and Tokyo using the 787. However, this action will delay the efforts of Boeing to certify the aircraft for ETOPS 330.

Possible results from the review can include:

1) redesign of components
2) changes in manufacturing processes and improved quality control
3) nothing

The last option is unlikely to happen and it is all but certain that there will changes coming. The question is what are the nature of the changes and what affect will it have on production and delivery as well as the program's bottom line which is already in the red?

Both Boeing, the DOT and the FAA went to great pains to reiterate during the announcement today that the aircraft is safe and reliable but observers do question that assessment given that the FAA is conducting the review in light of the electrical issues and the battery fire that the in service 787s have experienced to date. I do believe that at the end of the day there will be changes that could add to the cost of production of the 787 and may add delays to the planned ramp up to 10/month.

There is no timetable for the conclusion of the review and Michael Huerta did say that the length and any changes that the FAA will require will be dependent on the data that the agency collects and analyzes from Boeing and the suppliers.

A source told me that he feel that the investigation will either validate the design or find issues which they will fix and he welcomes the investigation. It is a serious enough issue to look into but he also thinks that the FAA won't find anything that won't require anything more than tweaks or adjustments to quality control and should not be a show stopper. He isn't losing sleep over the investigation.

In the meantime the battery fire on ZA183 and the fuel leak on her sister ship the following day has generated such a media frenzy that new outlets are now reporting on issues such as cracked windshields,and oil leaks. These are issues that occur on airplanes all over the world and are more of a nuisance than a public safety issue. The media jumped on every little squawk that occurred since the fire. My feelings is that the media has decided to make newsworthy, simple issues that occur everyday on airplanes around the world simply because they were bored and needed to sell papers. There is simply no need to to repot a cracked wind shield or a simple oil leak for any other reason except to jump on the bandwagon with those how are shrilling that the 787 is an unsafe airplane when in reality it is not.

At the end of the day the FAA will make recommendations for manufacturing, quality control, and/or design tweaks to make the electrical system safer and more reliable.

2nd JAL 787 suffers another incident, NTSB releases 787 fire preliminary findings

Another eventful day for Boeing and the 787.  In a surreal twist from yesterday's events, another JAL 787 in Boston experienced a fuel leak mishap as it was taxiing to the departure runaway for the return flight to Tokyo.  According to news reports, the aircraft leaked about 40 gallons of fuel by the time it returned to the terminal.  Maintenance crews inspected the aircraft and JAL 007 then departed at around 4pm for Tokyo after a delay of 4 hours.

The aircraft from yesterday's incident (ZA183) is still in Boston as the NTSB assigned two more investigators to team looking into the event from yesterday.  The team said that the lithium ion battery fire did cause extensive damage in the battery pack area and the damage was confined to no more than 20 inches away from the source.  These batteries are used to start the APU.  Boeing in a separate statement that this incident is not related to the other electrical issues that the 787 has faced.

However, Jon Ostrower reported that United Airlines, while inspecting the lithium ion batteries in one of their 787s, found that the wiring to the batteries were incorrectly connected.  This does not mean that the same condition existed in ZA183 or caused the fire but it may it disturbing nonetheless and would be looked into as a possible cause of the fire by the NTSB.  The battery fire may be a design issue with the battery, a one off manufacturing flaw, or incorrect installation or maintenance of the battery among the many root causes that the investigators have to examine. Despite the two incidents in two days, 787s are still in use by customers around the world and Boeing flew ZA430 (LN 73, B-2728) flew a function check flight. Though Boeing is still working with Chinese regulators to certify the 787 for use by that country's airlines.  China Southern is still expecting it's first 787 in March though it is unknown if the fire will set back those plans.

Japan Airlines 787 suffers fire in aft electrical bay

The most recently delivered 787 to Japan Airlines (ZA183, L/N 84, JA829J delivered on Dec. 20, 2012) suffered a small but intense fire in the aircraft's aft electrical bay less than a half an hour after landing at Boston's Logan International Airport. The aircraft had its first flight on Dec. 7, 2012 and conducted 3 test flights after completing final assembly in Everett. The passengers and crew had already deplaned by the time a maintenance worker smelled smoke in the cabin. Mass port and Boston FD responded to the fire to find smoke in the bay and had the fire under control a short time later.

Initial reports indicate that a battery exploded but it unclear if that happened because of the fire or was the cause of the fire. The NTSB has dispatched a team of investigators to Boston to determine the cause. Reports also indicate that there was a minor injury to one firefighter. Jon Ostrower reports in the Wall Street Journal that the fire may have been exacerbated by damage to the LiON battery by a fire ax.

The aft electrical bay has been a source of problems for the 787 since a fire on ZA002 a little over two years ago forced an emergency landing in Laredo, Tx and set back deliveries by 6 months. In the last few months, there has been an increasing number of in service 787s experiencing electrical issues, some in the aft electrical bay. The airlines that have reported electrical issues include United, Air India, Qatar and LAN. Today's fire is by far the most serious of the problems. One cannot ascribe these issues to teething problems as it now seems that the problems may be far more serious than initially thought but hat determination must await the NTSB report.

It is unclear what affect this fire will have on production, testing and delivery of new 787s from Everett and Charleston though ZA512 for ANA did fly not 1 but 2 test flights today well after the fire had occurred. I do suspect Boeing will continue production and testing while the investigation is on going unless the FAA orders a grounding.

Qatar Airways delaying 787 delivery

Well U Turn Al (Akbar Al-Baker for the uninitiated), the CEO of Qatar Airways, is at it again.  The bane of both Boeing and Airbus is now saying that Qatar Airways won't accept any 787s until the FMS (fan mid shaft) in each of his 787s are replaced.  Currently 10% of the 787s he ordered is outside at Everett waiting to be delivered.  The demand defies logic in the face of the investigation and recommendations made by the NTSB, FAA, GE and Boeing.  Thus far the cracks of the FMS is attributable (it appears) to the coating on the FMS.  GE is altering the way it applies the coating but it does not appear that the FMS has to be changed out in total unless crack have been discovered. The FA also has put out recommendations for airlines to inspect the FMS every 90 days for cracks.  With action on the issues facing the GEnx engines, airlines are continuing to fly the engine on both the 787 and 747.  U Turn Al is trying to leverage this issue for more compensation from GE it appears.

The whole issue of the delays is further clouded by other possible reason for the delay:

1) Refurbishment of the interior after Qatar insisted that Boeing displays its first 787 at the Farnborough Air Show. 
2) Wholesale change out of the interior which necessitated the aircraft to go to California to have the interior changed out by the OEM as Boeing couldn't do it.
3) Issues with the IFE/WIFI system that Qatar had bought from Thales.

So the bottom line is when will deliveries commence? A source has told me that deliveries should commence no earlier than the end of October but don't be surprised if this is pushed even beyond that.  At the end of the day this is not Boeing's fault but rather the actions of a press hungry, attention seeking, egomaniacal airline executive.

Boeing is also waiting to deliver the 1st 787 built in Charleston to Air India.  Once again (unsurprisingly) the delivery is being held up by the Government of India. ZA237 (LN 46, VT-ANI) is ready to be delivered but there is no word on when from Boeing. It was expected last week but never occurred.  Rumor has it that it could be this Thursday, Oct. 4th but I've heard that one before. We'll truly know when the aircraft is wheels up out of Charleston and heading for India.

On the bright side, Boeing delivered ANA's 15th 787 which was ZA135 (LN 66, JA815A) on Sunday and was flown to Japan last night.  Boeing is now up to 26 deliveries over all, 23 in 2012 and 7 in September.

Boeing continues to fly GEnx engines on 787 and 747

Boeing, after having performed the necessary ultrasound inspections on the GEnx engines on the airplanes they have in pre-flight, flew three GE engined aircraft today (out of 4 airplanes).  This does give some reassurance that deliveries of these airplanes (a least to specific customers) are moving forward.  Again I don't expect Air India to take any more airplanes until at least the NTSB, GE and Boeing discover the root cause of the crack in the Fan Midshaft and implement corrective actions and/or a re-design.  There would be considerable amount time added as the fan midshaft of the these engines will all have to be replaced once the root cause and a solution is found.  Today ZA263 and ZA264 both for Ethiopian flew test flights.  Both these flights were the B-2 flights though ZA264 still has to be painted and will probably be painted in Ft. Worth.

GEnx problems slow down 787 deliveries

Another set back for GE powered 787s and 747-8s as the NTSB is recommmending that operators of the 787 and 747-8 (F and I) conduct ultrasound inspection of the GEnx-1B and GEnx-2B Fan Midshaft as possible corrosion issue may produce cracks that would eventually lead to fractures of this vital part.  In the short term the NTSB is recommending that the FAA issue an emergency airworthiness directive requiring that operators do the ultrasound before the flying the aircraft and then at regular frequent intervals thereafter to catch any possible cracks before they become a problem.

The NTSB has identified one 787 at Everett that has one engine with a cracks in the Fan Midshaft. They along with GE and Boeing are trying to discover the root cause of the cracks and with the failure of a 2nd GEnx engine and discovery of cracks in a third, the investigation has taken on more urgency.  So far it looks like many of the 787s and 747-8s have been inspected and Boeing continues to conduct test flights of both airplanes with the GE engine but this issue already is affecting deliveries. Air India has already said that they will not take anymore 787s until a root cause is discovered.  It is rumored that Qatar Airways may follow suit while other carriers that have ordered the GE engine have yet to make their intentions known.  So far GEnx engines have been delivered to Air India, Ethiopian and JAL.  JAL and Ethipian continue to fly the 787s as is Lufthansa with the 747-8I and thus far there hasn't been any word on these airlines pulling the aircraft from service.

Here's the full text of the NTSB statement:

 

In this letter, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommends that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) take urgent action to address safety issues that have been identified in the NTSB’s ongoing investigation of a fan midshaft (FMS) fracture and crack in zero-time General Electric (GE) GEnx-1B engines on Boeing 787 airplanes and a possible FMS fracture on a low-time GEnx-2B engine on a Boeing 747-8F airplane.

On July 28, 2012, a Boeing 787-8 airplane experienced a loss of thrust in the right engine—a General Electric (GE) GEnx-1B turbofan, engine serial number (ESN) 956-121—during a pre-first flight, low-speed taxi test at Charleston International Airport, Charleston, South Carolina. As the airplane was accelerating through 40 knots, the No. 2 engine’s N12 speed rolled back and the pilots retarded the throttles to abort the test. The airplane taxied back to the ramp, where the engines were shut down. A visual inspection of the engine during the NTSB’s investigation revealed the low pressure turbine (LPT) rotor had shifted aft and extensive damage to the LPT blades and vanes. Further examination of the engine revealed the forward end of the FMS was separated at the rear of the threads. The fractured end of the FMS with the retaining nut still in place was removed from the engine and sent to GE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for dimensional inspection and metallurgical examination. The engine was subsequently removed from the airplane and also sent to GE in Cincinnati for disassembly and examination. The engine had not yet been operated in flight, having only been operated during post-production tests at GE and post-installation ground runs at Boeing in Charleston.

As a result of the ongoing investigation into the FMS separation that occurred on ESN 956-121 at Charleston, GE developed an ultrasonic inspection to scan the forward end of the FMS under the threads where the fracture occurred. On August 13, 2012, a GEnx-1B engine, ESN 956-175, installed on a 787-8 airplane that had not yet flown was found to have an indication of a similar crack on the FMS. Like ESN 956-121, this engine had not been operated in flight and had only operated during post-production tests at GE and post-installation ground runs at Boeing in Seattle, Washington. The engine was removed from the airplane and shipped to GE, Durham, North Carolina, for disassembly and further ultrasonic tests that confirmed the crack. The FMS was removed from the engine and shipped to GE in Cincinnati for further inspection and examination.


Examination of the FMS from ESNs 956-121 and 956-175 revealed that they conformed with the engineering drawing’s requirements. Metallurgical examination of the FMS from ESN 956-121 revealed a progressive fracture that had initiated from multiple origins around the outer circumference of the FMS at the root of the rearmost thread. The progressive fracture covered about half of the fracture face.

Although the fracture in the ESN 956-121 FMS was progressive in nature, the examination of the fracture surface in the scanning electron microscope (SEM) did not reveal any striations that would be typical of a fatigue fracture. Rather, the SEM examination revealed a faceted, quasi-cleavage fracture morphology that is typical of environmentally assisted cracking4 of certain high strength steel alloys such as that used on the GEnx FMS. The metallurgical examination of the FMS from ESN 956-175 revealed several progressive cracks that had initiated around the outer circumference at the root of the rearmost thread. The morphology of these fracture surfaces was consistent with what had been observed on the FMS from ESN 956-121. The investigation into the cause of the environmentally assisted cracking that occurred in the ESN 956-121 and -175 FMSs is continuing.

On September 11, 2012, a Boeing 747-8F (operated by Air Bridge Cargo, a Russian certificated air cargo carrier) equipped with GE GEnx-2B turbofan engines experienced a loss of power in the No. 1 engine, ESN 959-228, during the takeoff roll at Shanghai Pudong International Airport, Shanghai, China. The pilots reported that as the airplane was accelerating through 50 knots, the No. 1 engine’s N1 indication dropped. The pilots rejected the takeoff and returned to the ramp, where an inspection of the No. 1 engine’s LPT revealed extensive damage. Further examination of the engine is pending, but photographs of the LPT show damage that is similar to that which was observed on GEnx-1B engine ESN 956-121 at Boeing in Charleston. Although other failure modes could cause an N1 rollback and broken blades, the damage noted on the photographs of ESN 959-228 is consistent with that observed on the engine that failed at Charleston. ESN 959-228 is reported to have accumulated approximately 1,200 hours and 240 cycles since new.  
GEnx-1B engines are used on Boeing 787 airplanes and GEnx-2B engines are used on Boeing 747-8 airplanes. The GEnx-1B FMS is slightly longer than that in the -2B engine. However, the threaded end of the FMS; the manner in which it is clamped with the retaining nut;
and the assembly procedures, material specifications, and operating environment are similar between the two models. Therefore, the FMS in GEnx-2B engines may be susceptible to the same type of failure observed with the GEnX-1B FMS.

Because of the short time to failure and the fact that all of the engines on any single airplane, whether the 787 or the 747-8, have all operated for the same period of time, the NTSB is not only concerned about the potential for further fractures occurring, but also the possibility that multiple engines on the same airplane could experience an FMS failure. Although the FMS fracture that occurred on the 787 at Charleston and the incident that occurred on the 747-8 at Shanghai both happened on the runway and the pilots were able, respectively, to abort the test and the takeoff, the NTSB is concerned about the possibility of an FMS fracture occurring in flight at the limits of an airplane’s extended twin-engine overwater operations, or ETOPS, range and the airplane having to operate with one engine inoperative for up to 5 1/2 hours.

The NTSB notes that, after the FMS fracture at Charleston, GE was very expeditious in assisting 787 operators with inspecting their GEnx-1B engines using the newly developed ultrasonic inspection, which is capable of detecting cracks once they reach 0.050 inch in length. To date, all in-service and spare GEnx-1B engines have been inspected. In addition, all GEnx-2B engines on passenger airplanes and spares have been inspected. The NTSB is aware that about 47 on-wing GEnx-2B engines remain uninspected and is concerned that they continue to operate while potentially susceptible to FMS failure. Because of the immediate threat of multiple engine failures on a single aircraft and the availability of an appropriate inspection procedure, there is an urgent need for the FAA to act immediately. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FAA issue an airworthiness directive to require, before further flight, the ultrasonic inspection of the FMS in all GE GEnx-1B and -2B engines that have not yet undergone inspection.

In addition, the nature of the cracking that was noted on the FMS from ESNs 956-121 and 956-175 did not provide a predictable crack propagation rate that a typical fatigue crack would have. The NTSB believes that repetitive inspections are necessary to ensure that, once an initial inspection has been performed, new or sub-detection-level cracks do not propagate and cause additional failures. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FAA require operators to accomplish repetitive inspections of the FMS in all (on-wing and spare) GE GEnx-1B and -2B engines at a sufficiently short interval that would permit multiple inspections and the detection of a crack before it could reach critical length and the FMS fractures. 
Therefore, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration:

Issue an airworthiness directive to require, before further flight, the ultrasonic inspection of the fan midshaft in all General Electric GEnx-1B and -2B engines that have not yet undergone inspection. (A-12-52) Urgent

Require operators to accomplish repetitive inspectionsmidshaft (FMS) in all (on-wing and spare) General Electric GEnx-1B and -2B engines at a sufficiently short interval that would permit multiple inspections and the detection of a crack before it could reach critical length and the FMS fractures. (A-12-53) Urgent