The Dream Is Over As FAA Grounds Nightmareliner

Tyler Durden's picture

The pain for Boeing never stops. Just out from Reuters:

  • U.S. FAA says requiring airlines to temporarily stop flying Boeing's 787 Dreamliner. #BREAKING
  • FAA: Battery failures on Boeing 787s could damage critical systems and structures, spark fire, if not corrected
  • FAA: Will work with Boeing, airlines to develop corrective action plan to resume 787 operations as "quickly and safely as possible"
  • FAA: Decision to ground Boeing 787s prompted by second incident involving lithium ion battery failure
  • FAA: Will also examine Boeing 787 batteries as part of comprehensive review announced last week

So, will Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (i.e., the US government) perhaps reassess his conclusion from last week that the Dreamliner is "safe" or perhaps this too is just more teething problems... Or merely an ultra aggressive case of industrial sabotage from EADS? In other news, perhaps it is time to find a more appropriate name for the Dreamliner?

Finally we are surprised how nobody has figured out this simple and brilliant solution yet: put Solyndra solar panels on all Dreamliners and call it a day.

For those interest, here is more from Reuters:

The Federal Aviation Administration said on Wednesday it would temporarily ground Boeing Co's 787s after a second incident involving battery failures caused one of the Dreamliner passenger jets to make an emergency landing in Japan.

 

The FAA said airlines would have to demonstrate that the lithium ion batteries involved were safe before they could resume flying Boeing's newest commercial airliner, but gave no details on when that could occur.

 

Boeing could not be immediately reached for comment.

Perhaps if Boeing had been reached for comment, it would have said: 'Shouldn't the FAA have ascertained the safety of the lithium ion batteries before clearing our airplane for flight after years and years of delays?

The use of new battery technology is among the cost-saving features of the 787, which Boeing says burns 20 percent less fuel than rival jetliners using older technology.

"Burns" being a great example of using the right word at the right time.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
shutdown's picture

With a synthetic fuselage and 187,428,665,110 critical, state of the art, high tech components all functioning perfectly and in synch with each another, one expects greater reliability. 

knowless's picture

This is what happens when instead of compensating your workforce you outsource to countries with poor records on human rights.. Not maliciously, it's just what fucking happens.

Notarocketscientist's picture

Ya built it in america - then we can have planes of similar quality to US built cars!!!

justsayin2u's picture

Boeing, Seattle, Washington, liberl, bail out!

delacroix's picture

the part of the fuselage, where the wings attach, failed the stress test. boeing solution, add more composite. this is an experimental aircraft. the french plane, that crashed coming from brazil, was one of the first designs that had a completely composite tail section. the battery issue is a blessing, drawing attention to the safety of this plane. composite is not stronger than titanium, just lighter.I'd rather pay $30 more for my ticket, than not live to pay my credit card bill.

trav777's picture

you fking MORON, AF447 crashed because the pilots stalled the plane.  The pitot tubes iced and gave them faulty airspeed indication.  It had nothing to do with the tail section.

The 787 is not experimental and has racked up 1000s of flight hours already.  JFC there is NOTHING you idiots won't run around screaming the sky is falling over

Vendetta's picture

you sure it wasn't mud wasps nesting in the pitot tubes?

tbd108's picture

The hardcore "you'll get it to work or I will fire your ass" engineers who put men on the moon mostly (if not all) retired after 9/11 and the serious layoffs that took place in the industry at that time. The current group of managers (many more marketers than engineers) who grew up in the days of fuzzy math are now in-charge. I have personally worked on the 707, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787, and the A300, 310, and 340 and I guarantee you that the current level of engineering expertise is pretty grim. I am aware of some current stories that would get you to take the train if you were aware of them. However in regard to composite tails ... the early A300 series had totally composite tails and I am aware of at least 5 planes that lost their tails ... however Boeing always puts metal clips in high stress areas so this will never happen to them. The battery issue is one that I have only suspicions about however I do know one senior engineer who worked in that area who quit before the project was completed (however he would not tell me why).

DutchRollMode's picture

To paraphrase: Boeing isn't the only major airplane maker with advanced-composites problems.

FeralSerf's picture

Not everyone believes those engineers put men on the moon.  Some people think it was a distraction that conveniently coincided with Vietnam debacles and domestic difficulties.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76620

tbd108's picture

Those people are paranoid quacks. The relics of the visits are there to see for anyone who cares to investigate. There are plenty of government sponsored scams but that isn't one of them.

Matt's picture

Stanley Kubrick filmed the landings in a studio. Here is the documentary with interview with Kubrick's widow that proves it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1_4JpP-lSo

Laretes's picture

Find a better conspiracy theory, please!

The remainders of the lunar landing modules have even been photographed again:

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-6220.html

Matt's picture

You should really watch the documentary. It has interviews with Donald Rumsfeld, among other top white house staff.

secret_sam's picture

Don't worry.  Boeing's an important company.  Some shit to do with national security or something. 

I'm sure they'll get their bailout....

rsnoble's picture

Any new aircraft should be required to take off and land and be in flight all damn day. For like a year straight before being put into use.  Unlike the current yes we tested it once(not to mentione it was all virtual to boot) then loading it with civilians and waiting for the billions to roll in.  Like the exploding Volt. What did they do.........take it around Daytona 5 times and call it good?

Riquin's picture

What do you expect from an aircraft where the parts were build all over the world and then put together in the US.  I think it was a bad management decision. To do something like that requires a very good QA program which we see now it is not there.  

banksouttacontrol's picture

I think you-all have it wrong..

Most of you's could not change a spark plug let alone find one.

Not often I satnd up for USA these days but this time I do. Go Boeing. Build em here and build em often.

God dam bitchez.

You got it worng.

tbd108's picture

I am able to change a spark plug and largely I agree with you that Boeing is a great company however the incredible amount of attention to detail that is necessary to build a modern airplane is not as strong as it once was. One problem with the 787 is the amount of energy that management put in sending work out of the Seattle area in order to put the union on their back heels. As far as testing goes, the company spent 10's of millions of dollars testing the hardware and software on the plane (perhaps more than on any other plane in history). There are some problems that only come out in the field and the 787 is not the first plane to have serious problems after it was delivered to the customers. My livelihood and the welfare of most of my neighbors (I live not too far from the Boeing plants) depend on getting this right so believe me, I am pulling for the company to get it right.

Notarocketscientist's picture

Boeing is another socialized business subsidized by the US government through bloated military budgets.

No wonder they have fucked up

tbd108's picture

I certainly agree about the military side of Boeing a socialized project. However the commercial side makes the best, safest jets in the world. I strongly suspect you couldn't get a kite up in the air. And just for the record, I have worked on the navigation systems for the space shuttle which kinda, sorta makes me a rocket scientist which you, by your own admission, aren't.

buzzsaw99's picture

Most of you's could not change a spark plug let alone find one.

 

I can't find them because the engineers hide 'em under and in between crap. Fuck usa and the horse you rode in on.

Yen Cross's picture

  Buzz knows his talk. Intake runners, throttle bodies, damping shrouds. The engine compartment is full of(thermal) plastic!

banksouttacontrol's picture

Bitchez..

Boeing maybe an icon of corporation welfare...

Union v Boeing I know nothing.

Still USA planned and executed this flyin' bitch. If she has a kink..well you do it better bitch. This from a person who has much angst against those that be.

Re: Buzz USA vehicles. Never, Never has it been eaiser to repair a car. You just do not have the right tool.

Bitchez

 

 

Matt's picture

Right, instead of common tools, you know need specialized computer software and hook-ups and proprietary tools just to do routine maintenance. Everyone should buy $5000 worth of tools when they buy a new car, just so they can change the oil and spark plugs.

quasimodo's picture

Most of you's? Hooked on phonics much? Fuck Boeing, all they want is to keep standing there with hands out like everyone else. I think you are "worng". 

Notarocketscientist's picture

I hope boeing goes bloody bankrupt over this - americans can't build a decent car - why would they be able to build an airplane?

 

America is so over

One of these is not like the others..'s picture

 

Maybe a consortium of the UK and the french should have designed it for them...

 

dolph9's picture

Remember that all of this added technology exists so people don't actually have to make decisions on when and how to use fuel.

Efficiency is an attempt to keep the Ponzi going.

Cabreado's picture

Corporate Narcissism is a real thing.

Consider it, maybe for a second or two, before your next flight.

AgAu_man's picture

This WILL make Boeing so risk-averse, that they will roll back many subsystem upgrades -- which are in fact superior to the prior subsystem.  And drive up the plane's development costs even more.  That's a shame.

/sarc on:

Gotta love the Gov (FAA) stirring the pot -- after they should have done their part.   But, hey, who really cares when you're on the Fed payroll, right?  Screw free enterprise right?  How much did the competition pay some FAA flunky to 'snooze' till it was too late?  A 2-acre mini-ranch in... Chile?

/sarc off

Shed Boy's picture

Hmmm..isn't it Boeing thats building those 30,000 lb Bunker Busters too. This is small potatoes compared to the zillions of $$$ they will make on defense money.

Bobportlandor's picture

Lithium Batteries have been a problem since the beginning. How in the hell do you specify a battery that's not 100% safe.

Laptop Computers and Cars have caught fire over and over .

It's time to take the all management and put him in a room with the Lithium batteries and test them @ full discharge rate.

 

Vendetta's picture

all the globalists can be stuffed in that room as well as far as I'm concerned

americanspirit's picture

Ask anyone aboard as the first one plummets to earth and they'll tell you it should be named the ScreamLiner

stant's picture

screamliner ,terrorist wont even get on it

robnume's picture

Let's name it "Screamliner"! If nothing else, Boeing could turn this dud into an amusement park ride. Oh yeah, way to go, FAA! I feel so safe now.

patb's picture

This battery problem isn't the biggest thing,  the bigger issue is the birds are way late and overweight.

 

it's going to be at least the next block before they are on weight, the penalty payments will make the program

unprofitable over it's lifetime.

OldmanRick1's picture

Aren't similar lithiam batteries used in the govt motors Chevy Volt? I believe so. and they caused fires in those costly pieces of crap. It would seem logical to assume that lithiam batteries in airplanes might do the same. 

hero HNL's picture

The batteries are produced by GS-Yuasa, a company in Kyoto, Japan. They make great batteries for motorcycles & cars for the Japanese domestic market.

 

Probably, 787 burned due to faulty wiring or overloading of battery.....meaning using more electricity than it was designed to handle.

 

However, a very dangerous accident. Imagine what would have happened if the plane was flying at high altitude.

Yen Cross's picture

usd/chf is about to fall of a cliff. You were abreast of the trade. You morons can't spot (gravity) if it falls in your lap!

hooligan2009's picture

hey..stick to your own market..i will buy you a case (jug? barrel?) of saki cos of this one!

http://www.investing.com/currencies/eur-jpy-chart

nordrhein's picture

Only about 80 of these aircraft have been built so far.  Probably fewer than that are delivered and in service.

With a revolutionary design one expects a few problems in the beginning. Might it be the best time to buy Boeing stock now?

 

 

hooligan2009's picture

i think you should wait til the first crash (touch wood, fingers crossed it never happens, but it will...all planes crash). that would be a better time

hero HNL's picture

At least, 787 was not as bad as the DeHaviland Comet.....It used to breakup in midair & caused too many accidents.....a real joke.

 

But the 787 is full of problems & people should stay away from it. Even the Iluyshin-96 is a better plane.

hooligan2009's picture

i have been on one of those comets...was a real step up from prop planes i can tell you

Laretes's picture

No sabotage necessary. Keep the silly conspiracy theories in the closet this time. Lithium ion batteries have been known to overheat and start near-unextinguishable fires for a long time. Boeing took a great risk and here is the price they pay.