Follow this blog:
RSS

Europe, FAA ground Boeing Dreamliners

By | January 17, 2013, 5:29 AM PST

The European Aviation Safety Agency has joined the FAA in grounding Boeing’s 787 Dreamliners due to security concerns.

The agency said that it has followed the lead of U.S. regulators due to potential safety concerns. On Wednesday, the Federal Aviation Administration grounded all U.S.-registered Dreamliners after an emergency landing was required in Japan when a battery caught fire. A similar problem was reported in Boston a week earlier.

“The battery failures resulted in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke on two model 787 airplanes,” the FAA announced on Wednesday. “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.”

A spokesperson for the European Aviation Safety Agency said the measures are currently in place “in order to ensure the continuing airworthiness of the European fleet.”

The only U.S. carrier that operates Boeing’s 787 Dreamliners is currently United Airlines, which said it has inspected its six-strong fleet. However, the firm intends to comply with the FAA’s order and will “work closely” on the aircraft’s technical review. India, Chile, Poland and Japan have all grounded their planes until further notice. Quatar Airways has also decided to land the flagship aircrafts as a precautionary measure.

Although the first commercial Dreamliner took flight in 2011, a host of technical problems — including fuel and oil leaks, damaged windows and now battery issues — prompted the FAA to announce a safety view of the craft last week.

In a statement, Boeing CEO Jim McNerney said:

“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.”

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...
9
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Security?
What are the security concerns? I thought these were all safety issues?
Posted by Brian Luff
17th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Grounding of Dreamliner aircraft
It is surprising that the reputed companies manufacturing and supplying these aircraft have taken the customers for a ride. There are supposed to be host of quality checks to be done before an airliner gets past the Quality test.It is now almost two years since the first Dream liner rolled out..The companies need to do far mopre than just ground the academic pln
Posted by CEEYESSAAR
17th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Such is the weakness of testing radically new technology
There is no practical way to test an airliner entirely to operational standards. Once in service, these planes fly 12 or more hours a day, every day until scheduled or other maintenance is required.

It's not a surprise that problems like this are popping up. Hopefully, this will be the worst of it.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
17th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
The End of A Dream
Looks like the Dream-Liner is turning into the Nightmare-Liner!
Posted by Willie11
17th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
Growing pains
As John said it's all part of the growing pains of radical new technology. I haven't heard anything that makes me think the problems aren't fixable.
Posted by riverat1
17th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
Li-ion battery?
I was told it is a large Lithium-xx battery that was to power the APU. Not the best choice since they require constant supervision and can have thermal issues leading to explosions. Its enclosure is right next to the enclosure for the Li battery that powers the plane's electronics. How nice. How about biting the bullet on a little weight and putting in Nimh or something.. ,
Posted by opcom
17th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
My guess is that is exactly what they will do.
Every day those planes sit on the ground is millions lost to Boeing, which has to kick back money to the airlines to compensate them for money lost while the plane are inoperative. Swapping the troublesome batteries out would seem to be the quick fix.

The problem is a direct swap probably isn't possible, at least overnight. The plane was specifically designed for and certified with the Lithium batteries. In aviation, you cannot simply swap one part for a different one without approval. They will have to prove to the FAA that the batteries that they swap with will be capable of fulfilling the role and will not introduce additional problems. It's much more difficult than it sounds.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 17th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Testing
Was the Dreamliner designed by a S/W writer - let the customer find the faults mischief
Posted by Dave51
17th Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
It's Complicated
As a mechanical engineer, I don't find these issues surprising. I design custom industrial process machines, that go through hundreds of hours of in-house and (FDA) testing before being released to the customer. I (like Boeing) rely on several subcontractors to do their job correctly.
Before any subcontracted part is installed on one of our machines our own quality control engineers go to their manufacturing plant, review their manufacturing procedures, and we do our own quality control review of their quality control inspections.
After their parts are received we do a quality/functional review of (at least) 10% of their product. We can not check every component received, it's just not economically possible.
After hundreds of hours of final product release testing, the final machine is sent to the customer.
While our product testing is in our plant for final release, it can not, and could not be flawless in the true work environment. Various true working environment issues can and do show up.
This machine is VERY complex, and relies on thousands of parts performing flawlessly, after final release. Perfect performance of a new product this complex, involving hundreds of engineers just wont happen.
I am a private pilot, with a very simple aircraft, but I get updates (and for lack of a better word) recalls on functional issues related to my aircraft. It's not a new aircraft and it's reliability has been know for years, but that does not mean issues wont occur over time.
The next time you drink out of an aluminum can, keep in mind, that my and (three other companies) have designed the inside cleaning and lining machines that keep you safe and we find problems down the processing road too!
An airplane, or the soda you just drank, which scares you more?
Posted by Mdwannabe
17th Jan
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!