Odds and Ends: Tit for Tat; Lockheed in crosshairs of—Embraer; 787 return to service

Tit for Tat: Airbus announces a big order from LionAir. The next day Boeing announces a big order from RyanAir. Airbus has a big press day for its groundbreaking at Mobile (AL). The next day Boeing announces a $1bn expansion at Charleston.

Lockheed in crosshairs: Embraer is going after Lockheed Martin. Aggressively.

787 Rescheduled: United Airlines put the 787 in its schedule from May 31. The FAA hasn’t cleared the airplane for flight yet, but Boeing has been telling customers to expect the plane’s return to service in May through June.

16 Comments on “Odds and Ends: Tit for Tat; Lockheed in crosshairs of—Embraer; 787 return to service

  1. And the next WTO case is…wait, this is delicate. Lockheed may want the US to sue Brazil over the KC-390, but Boeing wants to sell Super Hornets. So it will be Lockmart vs Boeing on The Hill.

    • Military stuff is exempt from WTO.

      (Which was another reason by the entire WTO stuff as it related to tanker was bogus.)

      • …unless a commercial product embodies technology developed under government funding. But in case of the KC-390 the product is military, you are right.

        Isn’t the Brazilian Air Force the owner of the KC-390 program rather than Embraer?

  2. A 787-8 (presumably LN-86) flew out of Paine Field this morning at 11:37am on a flight to Moses Lake. I wonder if the FAA required more data, or if this is another flight to iron out the electrical system bugs.

    • Flight was unrelated to battery stuff, said Boeing. Boeing didn’t make references to any specific system.

      • Thank you Scott! Even though they are not re-certified yet, it is good to see the 787’s flying again. It gives me the sense of progress is being made.

  3. I thought the 787 was grounded, and could only do test flights for battery re-certification after approval of each fligth by the FAA. And as far as I know, they only approved two flights.

    I am obviously missing something… if anyone knows, please enlighten me.

  4. I am sure I read somewhere that Boeing is theoretically free to take it on test flights. It simply cannot be flown as part of a commercial airline. Please correct if this is wrong, I may be talking rubbish, or just got half the story.

  5. “In a surprising omission, the mainstream western media is ignoring Japan’s determination to follow no-one when it comes to establishing the safety of Boeing 787 Dreamliners.”

    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/04/09/dreamliner-787-gets-further-battery-testing-in-japan/

    “However in the less questioning media, it is as though a line has been drawn under the problem, causes unknown, and the super fire box is so certain to be passed by the FAA that airlines, including United, are already scheduling a return to service by their 787 from late May.

    Japan’s safety authorities seem, however, to be made of tougher stuff.”

    • I think this article is an overreaction to what is being reported in Japan. The significance of this activity is dependent on what type of testing it is.

      It makes perfect sense that the JTSB is conducting testing to support its investigation into the ANA incident, just like the NTSB conducted extensive testing during the JAL incident investigation. It could be one of the myriad of tests required to “dot the i’s and cross the t’s”. I seriously doubt they are doing any sort of testing on the old battery system that involves inducing failure while on-board the aircraft.

      Concluding that the JTSB is somehow tougher than the NTSB because of the timing of this JTSB testing is a pretty big stretch. From what I can tell, the NTSB is holding their ground quite nicely. They’ve been very thorough and impartial with their investigation and have bristled at anyone suggesting a conclusion before they’re ready to make theirs.

      Ultimately, the FAA needs to sign off on the new battery system, and they have not done so yet. They may yet decide that more data is required, which would mean more testing. We will see. In the mean time, the airlines are making their plans based on the info they have available to them, which is likely more info than the public has.

      • Agreed that the testing is on the “historic” setup. The article clearly makes it sound like the testing is occurring on board the aircraft while it is on the ground “at an airport in western Japan”.

        This is precisely why I don’t think this testing involves inducing battery failure. No test director in their right mind would allow this test to happen on board the actual aircraft. They could very well be looking for the presence of possible root causes that could lead to an event trigger, but not the event trigger itself.

      • Well, what could be garnered “something” in how the battery is handled/used forces either (unexposed) damage or misaccounting in battery state.
        The final element in charging the battery triggers this precondition into a “battery incident”.
        ( both incidents happend in steady state airplane usage after having started/used the APU: 1:idle with APU running 2: in flight, timing was similar. in both cases the battery would have been in a(final?) charging mode).

        Personally I would go for exposing this preconditioning.
        In all my experience in electronics just fixing symptoms
        has a knack for biting back unexpectedly.

      • “Personally I would go for exposing this preconditioning.
        In all my experience in electronics just fixing symptoms
        has a knack for biting back unexpectedly.”

        Exactly. If I was in charge, I would propose to my management every reasonable test that I could think of, in order to ferret out any possible cause, both direct, and indirect involving handling that could lead to “preconditioning” for disaster, as you say.

        My first reaction to this report was that perhaps the JTSB was looking into the possible consequences of the reportedly incorrect battery system wiring on board the ANA 787. This made some sense to me, because it is unlikely the NTSB investigation would have covered this, as the JAL 787 wiring was found to be in order. However, I’m not sure how accurate the reports of miswiring were.

        At any rate, I think Boeing is aware of and involved in these tests to the degree they are allowed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *