Similar Posts
Boeing Responds to the NTSB 787 Battery Update
And This is what Boeing Has to Say
SEATTLE, Feb. 7, 2013 / — Boeing (NYSE: BA) welcomes the progress reported by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in the 787 investigation, including that the NTSB has identified the origin of the event as having been within the battery. The findings discussed today demonstrated a narrowing of the focus of the investigation to short circuiting observed in the battery, while providing the public with a better understanding of the nature of the investigation.
The company remains committed to working with the NTSB, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and our customers to maintain the high level of safety the traveling public expects and that the air transport system has delivered. We continue to provide support to the investigative groups as they work to further understand these events and as we work to prevent such incidents in the future. The safety of passengers and crew members who fly aboard Boeing airplanes is our highest priority.
The 787 was certified following a rigorous Boeing test program and an extensive certification program conducted by the FAA. We provided testing and analysis in support of the requirements of the FAA special conditions associated with the use of lithium ion batteries. We are working collaboratively to address questions about our testing and compliance with certification standards, and we will not hesitate to make changes that lead to improved testing processes and products.
Airbus 320 Reboot Confounds United Airlines Pilots
United Airlines pilots guilty as charged again, in that Airbus 320 that had to make an emergency return to New Orleans on April 4. A pilot in command should know he can’t skip procedures on the checklist (especially an Airbus checklist) or else there are consequences. In this case, the emergency restore didn’t work.
Ok, lest anyone accuse me of being incorrectly legal instead of correctly tongue-in-cheek, no one was “charged” with anything.
On April 4, 2011, the United Airlines Airbus 320-232 (N409UA), serial number 462, left Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport and returned 20 minutes after take-off due to electrical difficulties and an indication of smoke in the cockpit.
But the NTSB investigation points to pilot error. And as far as I am concerned any error that does not result in damage, but does result in amended procedures is a good thing. What has happened as a result of this pilot error is a revision to the pilot checklist that pilots have to follow when they are handling electrical malfunctions. The malfunction was not really the pilots however. There was a faulty fire-warning sensor, but the reboot procedures just made it worse since in the reboot procedure, a generator didn’t get turned back on.
Consequences the pilots had to deal with as a result of the absent generator included a blank screen for the copilot, steering issues with the jet’s nose gear and antiskid protection for the brakes, and the intercom.
It must have been a pretty exciting 20 minute ride for the passengers, as it ended on emergency slided.
NTSB ISSUES INVESTIGATIVE UPDATE ON CRASH OF ASIANA FLIGHT 214
The NTSB investigation into the crash of Asiana flight 214 pivots this week from the on-scene phase in San Francisco, with the NTSB closing its on-scene command post today and investigative groups wrapping up their work at the airport.
The investigative team completed the examination of the airplane wreckage and runway. The wreckage will still be available for further examination if necessary at its secure storage location at San Francisco International Airport.
The Airplane Systems, Structures, Powerplants, Airplane Performance, and Air Traffic Control investigative groups have completed their on-scene work and have left San Francisco. The Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder groups completed their work in Washington last week.
The Flight Crew Operations group completed several witness interviews over the weekend. The Survival Factors/Airport group will be completing their interviews of the first responders today.
The next phase of the investigation will include additional interviews, examination of the evacuation slides and other airplane components, and more in-depth analysis of the airplane’s performance.
This is an informational release only. No interviews will be conducted.
Further investigative updates will be issued as warranted.
Small Plane Crashed onto Long Island Rail Road Tracks; 1 Killed, 1 Injured
A Hawker Beechcraft BE35 plane crashed onto Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) tracks at the crossing between Hicksville and Bethpage stations on Long Island, New York, on August 16.
The plane was heading from Francis S. Gabreski Ariport, Westhampton Beach to Morristown when the pilot reported difficulty in maintaining altitude. Authorities said he was attempting to make an emergency landing at Republic Airport, Farmingdale but could not make it to there.
The pilot was killed in the crash while his only passenger, identified as Carl Giordano, 55, of New Vernon, New Jersey, sustained injuries. He was taken to Nassau County University Medical Center.
The FAA and the NTSB are investigating.
Automation at Fault?
Here’s the question: do pilots rely too much on automation? This question has been on my mind since hearing the parallels between the UPS Cargo jet crash and the Asiana passenger jet crash. This is on my mind not only as one who works toward aviation safety but also as a very frequent flyer. You can only imagine how my work carries me into international situations. I don’t fly as frequently as a pilot, but sometimes I fly internationally several times a month. I am on these planes frequently. I rely on them.
So I find it disturbing that the NTSB’s hearing Thursday revealed parallels between the crash of UPS Flight 1354 and Asiana Filght 214. While I don’t know the answers, I can only hope the investigation shines light on ways to deal with this problem. What is the solution? Less reliance on Automation? Better training for pilots?
On the other side of the coin, some parties will want even more automation, but I am reluctant to go in that direction. The idea of even more reliance on automation is anathema to me because the engineers and advocates of reliance on even more automation will not be on those even-more automated planes. While the technology and/or training will be on the chopping block, their actual necks won’t be.
What I don’t find disturbing is the professionalism of the hearings. The webcast is well worth watching.
The hearing webcast is recorded here: http://ntsb.capitolconnection.org/022014/ntsb_archive_flv.htm
Note the NTSB cautions participants in the hearing not to engage the media and to stick to the facts.
Or the recorded captions (unformatted) are here.
https://airflightdisaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ntsb022014.htm.pdf
bio docket: https://airflightdisaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/biodocket.pdf
Dreamliner Battery Box Solution
An upgrade to the battery has been reported, and Boeing is adding a fire-resistant battery box to contain the cells, and insulation around that. The box is to vent smoke outside, and will be made of titanium.
Boeing is still planning on using lithium-ion cells instead of switching to nickel cadmium. The batteries face a series of twenty lab tests before test flights will be permitted.
The two approved test flights include one for the new battery, and one for the new box.
Each Dreamliner has one lithium-ion battery to power cockpit systems, and one to power on-ground functions that used to be hydraulic.
The FAA statement is below:
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.