Jump to content

Talk:2013 Boeing 787 Dreamliner grounding

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dreamliner 787 Li Battery & Flyby Anomaly

[edit]

I've just watched Channel 4's 'Terror In The Skies' last night and was amazed that the industry is content with not knowing the cause of the two recent events which grounded the Dreamliner 787. The lithium batteries are much lighter than previous batteries and therefore feature highly in the latest aircraft designs. There's two complete mysteries which need solving in the aeronautical industry imv. The Earth flyby anomaly is relevant due to the latest high flying super-aircraft in development which skim the Earth's outer atmosphere. Is it too much to consider that the two may be connected?? A mystery force which acts on the batteries or fluids of the satellites causing an anomalous acceleration and which also can act on the lithium-ion batteries of the new aircraft designs? 195.59.118.106 (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey.[reply]

Here's a latest article 8th June 2013 [url=http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/08/bad-news-for-boeing-the-dreamliners-battery-is-a-n/[/url]. 195.59.118.106 (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey[reply]

Boeing should consider the work of NASA scientist Friedmann Freund and thixotropic behaviour which is behind Earthquake Lights eligidly. A new type of electrical discharge which interacts with the Li-ion battery? 195.59.118.106 (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey[reply]

Rambling intro

[edit]

"Although teething problems are common within the first year of a new aircraft design's life, after a number of incidents including an electrical fire aboard an All Nippon Airways 787, and a similar fire found by maintenance workers on a landed Japan Airlines 787 at Boston's Logan International Airport, the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ordered a review into the design and manufacture of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, following five incidents in five days involving the aircraft, mostly involved with problems with the batteries and electrical systems" has to be one of the longest and most prolix sentences ever to be used in a Wikipedia introduction. Can someone please break it up, and use less POV wording.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Text requires amending

[edit]

The article needs editing to reflect the passage of time. There is a lot of "are" and "is" and "will" going on to describe events of more than two years ago now. YSSYguy (talk) 06:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article needs to be rewritten as well to consolidate a lot of inaccuracies from secondary sources. The article makes it seem like there were many different recommendations or reports after which nothing happened, when it was rather a smaller number of reports and a number of press releases and different paraphrasing. After the 787 resumed flight, there was no more press releases and the article makes it appear as if nothing happened, but 787 are in the air. Any subesquent changes should be documented. I did add a reference to the actual NTSB safety report for which the press release was December 2014, but the report was adopted in November. Wiredrabbit (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of Battery Casing

[edit]

I have watched a Boeing engineer describe the battery-casing redesign. As far as I can tell, they have simply put the same battery in a thicker metal box. Since the electrodes have to go through this thicker box, has anyone information on the testing of the revised battery? I would suggest that the same failure can occur and note that Lithium Ion Polymer batteries are not allowed to be transported in passenger jets under FAA rules. All the box does is contain the fire - the LiCoO₂ cathode and Li anode pose a problem since the MSDS of the former says water/foam is the method of extinguishing while MSDS of the latter says dry powder.

The risk seems to be overcharging but when you read how central these 5 batteries are to the 787s functionality (using power from them rather from a generator - to save gas-mileage I would guess)

I know this is part speculation but hope someone with more knowledge can use it.


The three paragraphs above (speculation on the battery case) are unsigned. The NTSB report stated it was not overcharging, but an internal short circuit. This must be addressed in quality as stated in the NTSB report. I have linked it and the full text is available on the NTSB website. I don't believe discussions of Boeing, rather than the text of the article are appropriate here. Wiredrabbit (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

[edit]

Basic information to add to this article: the function of the batteries on the Boeing 787 planes, which caught fire. I can't believe someone wrote a supposedly encyclopedic, informative article on this subject but never addressed why there are batteries on a jet fuel-powered plane, and what their function is. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_Boeing_787_Dreamliner_grounding&oldid=1220977172"