Home / Blogs / Business / The Bulletin
Follow this blog:
RSS

Boeing proposes emergency fix to get Dreamliners back in the air

By | February 20, 2013, 6:54 AM PST

Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner battery woes continue, but the firm plans to propose a short-term fix as early as this week.

According to the Seattle Times, the carrier plans to get fliers up in the air again as quickly as possible — unsurprising considering the endless list of airlines who have grounded their Boeing 787 fleets until a solution to continual battery problems is found.

In order to make the Dreamliner fleet safe enough to ferry about commercial passengers, Boeing intends to re-design of the lithium-ion battery which has caused so many issues — ranging from causing emergency landings in Japan to cabin fires and overheating.

Fleets have been grounded worldwide, including in the U.S., Japan, Chile and Europe.

Citing sources with knowledge of the matter, the publication says that while the re-design goes ahead — which could take the best part of a year — Boeing will propose a “heavy-duty titanium or steel containment box” that would fit around the battery cells, and then if there is a battery fire, any gases resulting from overheating would escape via high-pressure evacuation tubes.

I can’t say that this method fills me with confidence, and it may not be the case that this stop-gap will be acceptable to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) either. It might stop the plane from suffering damage, but there’s no reason to suggest overheating wouldn’t require an emergency stop.

The battery issues may be costing Boeing a fortune — without considering potential lawsuits placed at their doors by airlines who have purchased the planes — but perhaps the company’s efforts should be focused on prevention, and not a band-aid solution which may still place passengers in danger.

Image credit: Boeing

Related:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Charlie Osborne

About Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne

Contributing Editor

Charlie Osborne is a freelance journalist and graphic designer based in London. In addition to SmartPlanet, she also writes the iGeneration column for business technology website ZDNet. She holds degrees in medical anthropology from the University of Kent.

Follow her on Twitter.

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
40
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Old school vs new school
Hey go back to using the older heavier air worthy proven batteries until a fix is finalized. It may be a long term solution, but it will get the (nightmare liner) dream liner back into the air again SAFELY!
Posted by geofer50
20th Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
It's just not that easy.
The 787 was designed around and certified for use of the original lithium-ion batteries. They cannot simply be swapped out for a completely different type without major changes to the electrical systems that those batteries both run and are charged by. It's not just about swapping one size for another.

Even if they wanted to, the plane was certified for use with the original batteries. They legally cannot swap them out for another type without the blessing of the FAA in issuing an supplemental certificate, which the FAA is in no rush to do since they're already under a microscope for so quickly certifying the 787 with the original troublesome lithium-ion battery.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 20th Feb
-2 Votes
+ -
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Do you have any idea what the f#ck you are babbling about McSpew?

"They cannot simply be swapped out for a completely different type without major changes to the electrical systems"...

You can swap out any XXXvolt battery with any other of like voltage without changing anything except a charger and the charger would most likely not need to be changed unless it delivered too many Amps... The NiCads would simply need to be in series to reach the desired voltage the electrical system was designed for. And in this case, you most likely wouldn't need to swap out a charger, just the friggin batteries. And I'm sure the FAA would have no problem approving the swap providing they were installed correctly. Yes, they may take more space and weigh more, but like I said earlier, there is plenty of cargo space to wire in a second battery box.
Posted by i8thecat4
20th Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
I was waiting for your non-response.
Actually, I do. I have spent most of my life in and around the world of aviation, so I am quite familiar with what I am talking about. Many of my closest friends and relatives are highly placed within the industry. I read aviation journals that would put your average newspaper reporter to sleep.

So let me put it in language that 14-year-olds might understand.

Aviation is a very, very regulated regime. So, it's understandable that people who might only have cursory experience with the world of automobiles, the closest analog they know, would find such concepts quite baffling.

If you wish to swap out the rims on your '92 Sentra for those silly spinning ones, you're pretty much free too do so. The government really doesn't care. It's also probably not too challenging to swap out the stock radio for one of those cool ones with all the flashing lights and speakers that go "boom-boom" as well. You are completely free to do so.

No so in aviation. Outside of the "experimental" category, builders and operators are not free to change components on a whim. The plane is designed, built, and tested, and then presented to the FAA for certification. Once the FAA signs off on the design, that is it. Changes cannot be made to functional elements of the plane without garnering new approval to "supplement" the type. Doing so is very timely and expensive. The applicant must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the new or changed component will not adversely affect the performance or safety of the aircraft.

This is also one reason why there's nothing "cheap" about aviation.

The problem with swapping out the existing batteries is not size; You are right; they certainly can find space to put bigger batteries. The problem is that all of the systems that monitor & charge the batteries and that the systems the batteries run are all specifically designed around the unique characteristics of the Li-ion batteries. Swapping them will require extensive re-programming and component testing.

Nothing happens fast in aviation on the ground. The FAA is already getting it's ass chewed for not foreseeing the existing problem, and going ahead and certifying the plane with this relatively new (for aviation) technology. They aren't going to make the same mistake twice.

But don't just believe me. (and I know you won't). Go ahead and swap out the lead-acid battery on your Sentra for a Li-ion pack to power your rad new stereo, and let's see how it goes. At least in your case, the worst-case scenario is probably just being stuck on the side of the road watching your net-worth going up in smoke.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 20th Feb
-4 Votes
+ -
You are such a friggin moron McSpew...
I can swap out the lead acid battery on any car for a 12 volt Li-ion pack and it will work perfectly (I would just have to make sure the pack had enough amps and reserve, which is not hard to do)... 12 volts is 12 volts doofus and considering most alternators trickle charge, I could get away with only slight modification to the charging system. I run a 36 volt and a 12 volt system on my boat and only the 12 volt system is lead acid. I have also flown planes since 1982 and I have friends who work on planes (including the friggin electrical systems).

I once had an alternator fail in my Beechcraft Bonanza about 30 miles out from my destination. I had to manually crank down the landing gear and had no way to know if the locking pins engaged. I had to do a distressed fly by for the tower and was given a green light to land (no radio and no flight computer, no flaps, and only basic instruments). I tapped the runway on the first pass to see if they locked and I landed on the second pass. I had a local mechanic install a new alternator and was ready to fly again in less than 2 hours.

So no, I don't believe you. I do however believe my engineering degree and it qualifies me to tell you that you are full of cr@p. So crawl back down to mommy's basement aka "your room" and spend a few hours touching yourself to Donald Rumsfeld pictures.

I'm sure the FAA wants a fix to this problem just as much as Boeing and NiCads are already proven safe and reliable and would be a no-brainer (something you should be familiar with) fix that would be easy for them to approve.
Posted by i8thecat4
Updated - 20th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
Once again, my hate-bot responds with predictable bile
So how often did you violate the FARs by changing parts out for uncertified components? Clearly, not too often as you're still alive to talk about it.

You'll have to forgive me if I have more faith in the army of engineers that Boeing has working on this problem than your sorry opinion. One thing is for sure; they are far more pleasant to be around.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 20th Feb
-4 Votes
+ -
When did I violate FAR McSpew?
You are just making up anything you like now?

Back to you Donald Rumsfeld pictures troll-boi.
Posted by i8thecat4
21st Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
When it comes to aircraft it's not that simple.
i8thecat4, John McGrew is right in his assessment of the difficulties of replacing the batteries and the issue of getting FAA approval for changes. The simple fix you propose might be ok for ground based vehicles where failure means you stop but for a large airplane which carries hundreds of passengers the requirements are justifiably strict.

I have to say that while I probably agree with your positions on a lot of things more than I do John McGrew when he's right he's right. Your personal attacks on him and the other conservative commentators here are getting rather tiresome. It comes across as childish trolling.
Posted by riverat1
21st Feb
-1 Votes
+ -
Really???
I've delt with the FAA on several occasions. I have also built aircraft and had then certified and approved according to FAA regulations and they are currently flying the friendly skies. The FAA is looking for a good resolution to this issue and will be extremely wary of a bandaid fix. What in the world makes you think that replacing the dangerous batteries with safe batteries is going to take any less approval than building a bomb..er.. I mean box around the existing batteries? McSpew is full of it and I'm suprised you can't see that riverrat. Boeing has to meet with the FAA for any proposed fix and will do so soon, and they better have more than a bad bandaid when they do.
Posted by i8thecat4
Updated - 21st Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
It's not just the FAA they need to convince...
...they've got to please the NTSB as well:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_02_20_2013_p0-550650.xml

And the NTSB, being a bit more political and much less concerned about practicalities, will be much more difficult to make happy.

But let me ask you this: With billions of dollars in orders hanging in the balance, and with the millions of dollars being lost each and every day the fleet sits idle, don't you think that if the solution was so simple as swapping out the batteries, they would have done so, say, a month ago?

Or is the problem a bit more complex, as I outlined above?

Or is it that of the hundreds of well-paid engineers they have working in this, they simply don't have someone as brilliant as you who's actually built an airplane before?
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 21st Feb
-2 Votes
+ -
I think the problem is incredibly simple.
What I think is that Boeing bought a lot of batteries and is desperately trying to figure out a way to use them versus dumping them and buying a lot of NiCads to replace them with. I'm sure the engineers have already suggested replacing the bad batteries with good batteries, but I also suspect they were told to try to make the current bad batteries work. How else do you explain the brainfart of an idea like turning the current batteries into a bomb / building a heat trapping box around them. The issue may also be complicated with difficulties in finding a suitable supply of NiCads / finding a supply without paying through the nose. And perhaps they desperately want to find a way to make the lithium-ion batteries work. But to be honest, lithium-ion batteries have a horrible track record as not being safe and Boeing needs to scrap the idea of trying to use them on a plane.
Posted by i8thecat4
21st Feb
-1 Votes
+ -
Well then, get on a plane to Seattle. They clearly need your expertise!
I assure you, the money that the airlines are losing every single day that Boeing will have to kick back to them is far more than whatever those batteries sitting in the warehouse cost.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 22nd Feb
+3 Votes
+ -
RE: i8thecat4 on batteries
The cost of any batteries that Boeing might have is stock is minor compared to the cost of not having the 787 flying right now. I can't imagine that is something Boeing is worried about. One reason the L-ion batteries are preferred is because they don't weigh nearly as much as a Ni Cad battery and weight is one of the most critical things on an airplane.
Posted by riverat1
22nd Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Don't disagree with him...
...because then you'll be an idiot too. Perhaps he'll even say something mean about your mother.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 21st Feb
-1 Votes
+ -
LOL
John, as I said while I disagree strongly with you, Hates Idiots and adornoe nearly all of the time the guy is really going over the top with the personal attacks and I don't care if he adds me to that list. What he's spewing says more about him than it does about you.
Posted by riverat1
21st Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Here's the big difference.
Even though I usually disagree with you, I have little doubt that we could go out for a beer and talk about all kinds of things and have a pleasant time.

I wouldn't want to spend a minute with a guy like that even if I agreed 100% with everything he had to say.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
22nd Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Yup, its possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
Yes, I can easily imagine having a beer and a good time with you and/or Hates Idiots. My co-workers here in our IT department would agree with you and I get along with them fine. We mostly avoid the controversial subjects and when we do talk about it we keep the heat down and don't call each other idiots.
Posted by riverat1
22nd Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Ack.
Wrong thread.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 22nd Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
It's actually "old-school"
for Li batteries to blow-up while charging OR discharging. In engineering,
we have the concepts of FAULT AVOIDANCE and FAULT TOLERANCE;
I'm not yelling, I am just stressing their importance. Building better
batteries is an attempt to increase FA, while putting the battery in an
explosion-proof box is an attempt to increase FT. Exploding laptops
due to Li batteries are "old-school", and better Li batteries and
associated electronic circuits, is why they are on the 787. Better
does not mean perfect, and that is where FT comes in; the box.
The box is an additional component, and probably can be easily
OK'd by the FAA, but is only an increase of FT. What the airline
industry needs is a better battery (FA); I'm surprised that it was
not already in an explosion-proof box. I guess the engineers
thought the battery was perfect, or like the Pinto Automobile,
that paying for the dead bodies was cheaper than a re-design.
Posted by bill1514@...
21st Feb
0 Votes
+ -
I agree with your accessment of FA and FT.
I'm also curious as to what you think this box made of heavy-duty titanium or steel that would fit around the battery cells with high-pressure evacuation tubes" would do to cooling of the current batteries? I see this as falling into a special category of FE (Fault Encouragement) as it would trap heat and only serve to further exacerbate the problem.

High-pressure evacuation tubes would indicate an air tight box. Think about that for a moment, an air tight box full of batteries that could buldge and explode and possibly block the "high-pressure evacuation tubes". There is a special name for and container filled with a substance that builds pressure rapidly to the point where the pressure causes the container to fail, it's called a bomb.

While I hope they are not so stupid that they would turn a battery problem into a bomb, they are proposing a fix that would overheat the batteries and make the problem worse... So I wouldn't put it past them at this point.
Posted by i8thecat4
21st Feb
-1 Votes
+ -
If I was Boeing
I'd say it was a bad batch of Li batteries and blame it
on the battery people. Then I'd offer reduced fares to
some guinea-pigs and cross my fingers. If that didn't
work, I'd blame Obama and try to get a bailout and
use the 787's for public housing. I'm not getting on a
787 until 300 Boeing executives survive a round-the-
world test-flight. No parachutes like a skeleton test
crew might have, just barf-bags.
Posted by bill1514@...
22nd Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
overreaction.
First, there hasn't been "so many issues", there has been a couple.

Second. Building a fireproof box seems acceptable to me. We do that for engines... You don't worry about all that raging fire just meters from your fuel-filled wings, do you?

Third, even if they went back to NiMH, they'd have to re-design the battery compartment because it's not large enough for NiMH and they'd have to re-certify with the FAA. So that's not going to happen any time soon.
Posted by dilkie
20th Feb
-2 Votes
+ -
Seriously dude???
How much friggin cargo space does a dreamliner have brainiac? You don't think a second battery box couldn't be installed and wired into that space?

A firebox is a horrible idea... It's just going to trap heat and make the problem worse... That idea is about as brilliant as installing trap doors under the batteries and dropping them when they catch fire...

The only logical fix at this time (as geofer50 mentioned) is to get rid of the lithium-ion batteries. I will never set foot on a dreamliner unless they get rid of the lithium-ion batteries and I'm sure there are a lot of people who feel the same way. If they really want to restore public confidence, then they need to do more than build a BBQ box around the existing batteries. Power on a plane is a good thing for flight controlls, radios, landing gear, passengers, etc. Replacing those batteries is the only solution that resolves the issue and helps the PR problems.
Posted by i8thecat4
20th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
Wait a minute.
"I will never set foot on a dreamliner unless they get rid of the lithium-ion batteries..."

You're the guy who has the unfettered faith in government. If the government says the 787 is safe to fly, then it must be safe to fly.

I see that like most liberals, you're attitude is radically different when it's actually your butt on the line. Typical.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 21st Feb
-3 Votes
+ -
Still Crying..
Oh, NOW I see what's going on. McSpew is STILL upset because his magic-underwearing vulture capitalist didn't win the presidency! He's twisting this into a political argument!! Wow. You just lost ALL credibility, McSpew. Get back to Fox News, where you belong.. isn't "Fox & Friends" on right about now??
Posted by sandshark75
21st Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
Yet another contribution from the loyal opposition.
It comforts me no end to know that people who respond publicly in such vapid fashion are opposed to my point of view. Cheers.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
21st Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Both sides have their idiots.
Now John, there's plenty of that sort of idiocy on both sides. Like "Obama is a communist". Remember legitimate rape? It's what happens when you put ideology ahead of pragmatism.
Posted by riverat1
22nd Feb
-2 Votes
+ -
Your first mistake was calling me a liberal McSpew...
I am liberal on some issues (like taking care of our sick, disabled, elderly, and poor). But I am very conservative on other issues like welfare, and government waste. I also give a rats patooty about what I give to my children and that includes the planet. So I am against the Faux/Republicant agenda of getting rid of any governmental protections for the environment so big business can rape the land and people. And I have very little if any faith in the government and zero faith in all but a few politicians. But I am not so stupid that I would allow myself to be brainwashed by the rich to vote for their agenda to satisfy their greed and that is what being a Republicant is all about No McSpew, I am an independent and will always be independent. I also dont believe anyone who claims to be a Christian AND a Republicant You cant be both because they are polar opposites. Republicants dont care about the sick, disabled, elderly, and poor, they are like the seagulls in the movie Finding Nemo, MINE, MINE, MINE, MINE. And true Christians are the exact opposite.

So listen up sinner, Im not a liberal and Im not a moronic conservative and Im not right in the middle. I am a person with a conscious who believes that the world can become a good place.
Posted by i8thecat4
Updated - 21st Feb
0 Votes
+ -
So, screaming childish bile at people you don't like...
...while never making cogent arguments is your idea of "making the world a better place"? The world can do without that kind of help.

But please don't stop. Every time you do, you make practically everyone else look all the more intelligent. I'm okay with that.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 21st Feb
-2 Votes
+ -
Screaming???
LOL!!! You are such a moron McSpew... Screaming is done in all caps doofus. The only screaming is in your twisted little head psycho-boi. Back to you Donald Rumsfeld pics troll.
Posted by i8thecat4
21st Feb
-1 Votes
+ -
Interesting...
...two replies that are remarkably similar, and under different names.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
21st Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
Think outside the Box
Did anyone consider possible defective charge controller may be the culprit? It is supposed to turn off charging the batteries when they are full. If one continues to charge these batteries when they are at full capacity, there is a potential for building up heat and potential fire.... Just a thought. May be they have already considered this....
Posted by usdoc1
20th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
It certainly could be a controller issue
Elon Musk has put batteries in high performance cars and space ships. Maybe they should accept his offer of help?
Posted by darudmon@...
20th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
I agree
If we don't know why it caught fire, then putting it in a fireproof box seems like an emergency solution and this isn't an emergency situation for anyone except Boeing stockholders.

And frankly, I'm even leery of the redesign. If you don't know what caused the problem, then you CANNOT know what will fix it.
Posted by minstrelmike@...
Updated - 20th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
Not a band-aid
2 problems after years of FAA mandated testing and flying the plane. And neither problem actually put flyers at risk. Maybe someone thought a hammer would be a good way to install these.

Even more protection to ensure safety is not a small nor a bad thing.

And a nicad replacement will take years to certify (as already mentioned). Do this now, start certifying the nicad option, and give a choice. Of course, by the time the nicads can be approved the lithium-ion will have years more of service and may prove these two time were the exception and not the rule.
Posted by Kansan52
20th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
battery band-aid!
This so call band-aid sounds like a good fire prevention, just in case an emergency occurs, but the battery problem by it self, is a separate issue, that also need to be address, which I am sure they are working on it, I too also wandered why don't they use the old battle proven equipment, but if a new battery design is what it takes, so be it.
Posted by LeonardoV59
20th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
Stop whining!
"perhaps the companys efforts should be focused on prevention, and not a band-aid solution which may still place passengers in danger."

Oh please! You very well understand why a two-pronged approach is necessaryboth a short-term fix and a long-term solution. There is no need to ground the plane for a year while a long-term solution is found. Containing the problem to make the situation SAFE is a fine step before the matter is made PERFECT. We live in a real world here. If you don't like it, don't fly on one. The public is well-informed on this and can make up its own mind.
Posted by neofeudal
20th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
battery / controller problem
I believe the same battery problem is occurring in the F35 fighter.
Its a battery and or controller problem.
Back in the 1960s British motorcycles like Triumph and Norton suffered with overcharging their 12volt batteries until Lucas introduced a charging regulator called a Zenner diode which solved the problem.Perhaps its worth looking hard at the charging and regulating system.
Posted by michael@...
20th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Miswiring
I saw a report from the investigation of the 787 that made an emergency landing in Japan. Apparently the charging system was miswired which lead to the problems. That apparently wasn't the case in the one that was grounded in Boston.
Posted by riverat1
21st Feb
0 Votes
+ -
i8thecat
Mr Mcgrew, I completely agree with your position on this subject. i8thecat is nuts. I wonder if he really is a pilot. but I am a liberal. please don't make the assumption that all liberals are like him. I'm embarrassed the subject of liberal/conservatives came up.
Posted by Jeff Cardinal
18th Apr
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!

Join Login

Keep Up with SmartPlanet

SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter
SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter

Facebook Activity

View Results

Quick Poll

Where do you believe consumers are in their adoption of the cloud?

View Results

Blog Archive