The FAA denies a report that it's close to allowing Boeing (BA) to conduct 787 test flights to...

The FAA denies a report that it's close to allowing Boeing (BA) to conduct 787 test flights to assess design changes to the aircraft's lithium-ion batteries. The agency first wants to see the results of Boeing's lab tests on the modifications, while it's also carrying out its own evaluation. Efforts in the U.S. and Japan to understand the root cause of the 787's battery failures are being hampered by regulators' lack of expertise.
From other sites
Comments (13)
  • txbadonetoo
    , contributor
    Comments (780) | Send Message
    I wonder if BA fighting the NLRB on it's opening a non-union factory in SC has anything to do with the FAA actions? Just a thought..
    27 Feb 2013, 03:21 AM Reply Like
  • thomas85225
    , contributor
    Comments (552) | Send Message
    South Caroline was not builds by Boeing but by Vought
    (which was Union!),
    Vought had set up partnership in South Caroline with Global Aeronautica, Italy and Boeing
    In 2008 The IAM was FIRED as the Union in South Caroline for non performance and in 2011 the IAM file a complaint with the labor board
    In 2003 Boeing award contacts for the 787 which is RISK SHARING PROGRAM there are 325 vendor on the program mostly non union see Manufacturing and suppliers at
    The FAA does required Aircraft to be build by union worked and Right to Work States does stop anyone from joining a union, Lockheed FT Worth TX is Union!
    The aircraft that Boeing is having problems with have been assemble in Everett by the IAM and Speea
    See history file at the Seattle times;query=faa+fine+boeing+
    The 787 is not the first program to be outsource to other aerospace company and supplier
    the KC-135A in 1957, 747 in 1966, 757 &767 in 1972, 737NC in 2005, 777 in 1991, 2003 in 2003
    Since the end of the 707,727, 737 classic, 70% of Boeing commercial has been off load into 70 countries and 25 states and Boeing has a become Multination Corporation
    At the being of the of the 7E7/787-8 programs in 2003 Boeing Jim Albaugh warn Boeing about all these new systems where unproven technology
    Only 35% of Boeing is Union 20% IAM, 13% Speea, 2% UAW
    UAW represents Boeing in Long Beach California and Philadelphia
    The IAM only represent Boeing in 4 out of 24 states, Washington State, MO, OR, Kansas
    UAW represents CA and PA
    AZ, Fl, TX, OK. PA, TX, AL, LA, SC, China and Canada are non union, alone with most of the 694 aerospace suppliers in Washington State
    Boeing wanted a no strike clause for the 787 program and when the IAM refuse Boeing place the 787 2nd assembly lines up for bid, 88 cities responded to Boeing request, Vought won the bid
    Vought aircraft who build the plant in south Caroline who was already building their two barrel section 46 and 47 and the south Caroline tax payer ok the tax break for the 787-8 program
    Spirit AeroSystems (Boeing) Kansas IAM loge 70 give Boeing a 10 years contact for the 787 section 41
    Vought south Caroline has all the composite equipments clean room, autoclay , climber control factories , Alenia Aeronautica , Italy (is non union) assembly 43,44 and 46 in south Caroline that are build in Japan ( Japan is non union)
    IAM has already lost law suited over outsource during the last contact the IAM member took a onetime check of $5000 to drop all current and future law suits over out source
    In 2002 Machinists lose their battle over Boeing outsourcing



    In the earls 1990 or three or four strike a ago the IAM went on strike to stop outsourcing Boeing and the IAM agree that the IAM would have first chance to bid on the parts being out source
    This would required the IAM to become a supplier to Boeing and buy the machinery and the building from Boeing and become a union hall and hire worker, this never happen but the membership did sign the contact anyway!
    (Note: Boeing is expanding the Vought plant again by 63% which has 480 feet wide assembly bays and if Boeing build the 777-X with 80 meter wing 264 feet wide If Boeing has build the 787 in house in would not fit into Everett
    In 2003 Boeing awarded contact to following aerospace company Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Japan, Alenia Aeronautica, Italy, Korea Aerospace Industries, South Korea Global Aeronautica, Italy, Vought Dallas Texas & North Charleston, USA, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Japan; Spirit Aero Systems, Wichita, USA; Korean Air, South Korea, door Latécoère, France once own by Boeing , Saab, Sweden, TAL Manufacturing Solutions Limited, India, Labinal, France, Korean Air, South Korea, Messier-Dowty, UK/France); Hamilton Sundstrand, Connecticut, USA,


    In the last 40 years how many Boeing divisions has become unionize by Speea and the IAM ?
    There 325 suppliers on the 787 and 694 aircraft supplier in Washington state
    3 Mar 2013, 06:57 PM Reply Like
  • wigit5
    , contributor
    Comments (4365) | Send Message
    Regulators have a lack of expertise? Get out of town
    27 Feb 2013, 08:23 AM Reply Like
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6356) | Send Message
    "The agency first wants to see..."


    The shape of things to come.


    This green monstrosity doesn't fly.


    Big business (hearts) big government---they'll kiss and make up.
    27 Feb 2013, 09:03 AM Reply Like
    , contributor
    Comments (59) | Send Message
    Oh my, Taxbd! The conspiracy theorists are running amuck! I think I heard that the reason FAA is involved with Boeing has something to do with fires on a couple of airplanes! If you're going to "have thoughts", please refrain from sharing those having NO basis! It wastes a lot of time and makes you look the fool.


    And as a tax payer, wigit5, you are willing to employ top level battery experts to sit at the ready at the FAA? Really? For make sure the bunny keeps running? The government typically hires top level consultants for this type of expertise. I'm sure they will in this case as well. This is bleeding edge technology...Obviously Boeing doesn't even have mastery of the technology!
    27 Feb 2013, 11:36 AM Reply Like
  • wigit5
    , contributor
    Comments (4365) | Send Message
    I was noting the irony in the statement.... you have regulators regulating that which they do not understand so instead of paying one expert your paying one dumb-ass and then hiring an outside consultant.
    27 Feb 2013, 12:00 PM Reply Like
    , contributor
    Comments (59) | Send Message
    Ad your solution is...?
    28 Feb 2013, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • wigit5
    , contributor
    Comments (4365) | Send Message
    I'd rather pay one person's salary, hire the expert fire the dummy.
    28 Feb 2013, 09:27 AM Reply Like
    , contributor
    Comments (59) | Send Message
    ...and so you do, indeed, see a need for a high-level government battery expert to sit full-time at a government desk, even during the 97+% of the time that the government has no high-level battery expertise needs. I'll just bet you also want to cut the size of government to the bones. This is the kind of irresponsible, conflicted thinking that has turned the US government, and therefore our country, into the world's laughing stock. It makes us all "dumb asses".
    1 Mar 2013, 09:59 AM Reply Like
  • wigit5
    , contributor
    Comments (4365) | Send Message
    so you would rather pay someone who isn't qualified to sit there for the 97+% of the time he isn't needed? And guarantee you'll need to hire an outside consultant every time an issue comes up?


    sounds efficient.
    1 Mar 2013, 10:02 AM Reply Like
    , contributor
    Comments (59) | Send Message
    No...actually, I'd prefer to have someone with a broad general background in aviation technologies who knows what he knows and knows what he doesn't know and can make the smart calls to bring in outside expertise when it's needed. Uh...I think that is what we have now, so I'm pretty dang happy with it. Pretty efficient. Keeping Boeing on the ground until THEY figure it out...that's the right call. It's not the government's job to solve their's the government's job to keep their problems from harming the traveling public. It's working very well.
    2 Mar 2013, 05:06 PM Reply Like
  • lreens
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
    I am an investor with an eye towards taking a contrarian view of situations and opportunities.
    Anyway, the question I have is why Boeing is having trouble with its lithium batteries when Toyota has been using what I understand are probably larger lithium batteries in its millions of Prius automobiles without battery over-heating incidents? What has Boeing done to get into such a mess and what info does the FAA has that requires such safe guards?
    27 Feb 2013, 01:14 PM Reply Like
  • thomas85225
    , contributor
    Comments (552) | Send Message
    Boeing and the FAA need to go the Boeing System Integration Laboratory there should be a functional test mock up of the 787 electrical system and test the perform of the electrical system by placing electric OVER LOAD into system of each components, of the six genitor, APU, R.A.T and two Batteries
    This test should explain why electrical circuit breakers (did not trip) that should have prevent the system from overloading of the electrical systems from the overload of the battery charging systems alone with aircraft on board monitoring system
    Also the System Integration Laboratory should configure for ANA and JAL by down loading the Flight Data Recorder from ANA and JAL into System Integration Laboratory and repeating the flight of ANA and JAL where the battery got fire to find the root cause of the 787 problems
    LRU’s like the battery are required to be in a explore proof case all the photo of the 787 battery show a sheet metal box, .063 thick
    Everything (expect the fuel) must meet the FAA Flammability Explosive requirements for aircraft
    The 787 LRU’s are liquid cool, where are the coolant lines at for the battery box?
    other aircraft uses air tube that are a part of LRU mounting try for air cooling of the LRU’s
    Photo’s of the battery box does not show the dual set of fire detection coil for fire detection systems?
    Or drain tube or vent tube for the battery box
    There is NO Fire Extinguisher that can put out a Lithium-ion batteries fire!


    The FAA is saying that there report on the 787-8 will not be release for four to six weeks
    The FAA should just add new cover sheet to their 2007 report


    Alone with two ion-battery they are 4 other LRU the yet to be address



    The 787s are grounded because of battery problems since 1-16-2013
    And a long list of production problems
    Jon Ostrower of Flight Blogger once reported: the first six flight-test 787 aircraft will have the original feature lithium ion batteries, but will be retrofitted with new batteries before delivery to airline customers



    In the last few weeks the 787 has had Leaking engines fuel lines Missing O-ring from engine fuel line, battery fires, miss wire main electrical panels deflect mother board, and miss wire APU, leaking engine oil, cracks windshield just a normal teething problems for new aircraft problems , and that since November 2012


    The 7E7 program was started in 2003 that become 787 Boeing said it would assemble one 787 ever three days or 10 per months,
    Boeing should assembly and delivery 300 to 400 787 to date only 132 787 has been assembly and 50 787 has been delivery the first 40 787 cost Boeing 32 Billions


    The 787 is not the first program to be outsourced!
    The KC-135A in 1956, 747 in 1960’s, 757 & 767 in 1972, 777 in 1990 and 787 in 2003
    Boeing award contact for the 787 in 2003 to the vendors and suppliers


    Boeing has been building and assembling aircrafts since 1916
    Boeing and the FAA knew about the battery in 2007 but Its wasn't enough to prevent a lithium-ion battery from lighting off in a Cessna Citation CJ4 last year alone UPS 747-400 freighter


    Cessna quickly withdrew the batteries from the Citations and the FAA issued an emergency AD. Cessna says it's still committed to Li-ion, but declines to offer details.




    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Federal Aviation Administration, 14 CFR Part 25
    [Docket No. NM375 Special Conditions No. 25-07-10-SC]



    The 787 is not the first program that had problems the 737-700 in 1997, 737 rudder problems, export tanker for Japan and Italy, 747 engineer mounting pin, cargo door that open in flight on United Flight 811, pressure bulk head repair, the FAA has never grounded the 747 or the 737
    3 Mar 2013, 07:18 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs