Ce site web utilise des cookies. En utilisant et en naviguant davantage sur ce site, vous acceptez cela.
Rejeter
Saviez-vous que le suivi des vols FlightAware est soutenu par la publicité ?
Vous pouvez nous aider à garder FlightAware gratuit en autorisant les annonces de FlightAware.com. Nous travaillons dur pour que notre publicité reste pertinente et discrète afin de créer une expérience formidable. Il est facile et rapide de mettre les annonces en liste blanche sur FlightAware ou d’examiner nos comptes premium.
Rejeter
Back to Squawk list
  • 7

It Could Be Years Before Dreamliners Are Back in the Air

Soumis
 
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner just can't catch a break. After all of the planes were grounded following some seriously troubling melting batteries, the FAA has been taking a look into what exactly went wrong. They'll take their time though; it could be years before the birds are back in the sky. (gizmodo.com) Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


eagle763
John Hale 6
What's your source?
bgaskill
brian Gaskill 6
They are about to resume test flights, so time speculation like this is ridiculous.
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 1
There is a huge difference between getting permission to conduct flight testing and resuming normal PAX service.
Iskra
Iskra 5
Worst case, they will replace the LiPo battery system with the NiCad system from the 777. Re-engineer the LiPo system and reintegrate. Simple just expensive...
air2014
Kent Lee 4
If the FAA and other government agencies were a corporation they would be bankrupt. Oh, I guess
Wingscrubber
Wingscrubber 2
Oh dear, looks like Boeing is up sh*t creek without a paddle. The gamble on more-electric technology isn't paying off, Elon Musk is criticizing their battery design, and even the employee who was fired for rejecting the battery during testing has come out of the woodwork. Sounds like they need a dual-source solution and fast!
RobSJC
Good idea ISKRA, It would only be expensive for them if there were a failure and loss of life using the current batteries .. Why not just throw some good old Ray O Vac's in there .. lol .. it was good enough for Jobs / Woz senior engineer who created the first original Lap Top .. Why not the 787 ?!
Fido7585
Fido7585 1
The test engineer who was "let go" (Big US Corporation-speak for "sacked") says it all. Boeing has been caught with its corporate trousers down with this Nightmareliner. The more I read - even with a big pinch of salt next the keyboard - the more determined I am never to fly this white elephant. Give me a 747 or any A300 series any day!
mwf117
Long may live the magnificent 767
jbermo
jbermo 1
To move airplanes again, fly with charging system isolated, then replace batteries with fresh ground conditioned ones prior to each flight - procedure is temporary until a fix is resolved. . . for some reason it just cant be that simple.

How many batteries burn up while waiting in parts supply?
jbermo
jbermo 1
All providing of coarse that B-787 hot battery bus is low use. . . On older Boeing's for example the hot battery bus simply powered the clock (but was otherwise used to enable standby systems, fire squibs, and emergency comm)
racerman
larry clement 1
We laymen obviously don't have the info to judge, but it seems a real gamble to switch to Lithiun-ion batteries when there have been several car fires attributed to them. I know it's a different animal, but why take a chance? If nicad or lead-acid would do the job. why not use them? Why could it take years to find the problem and fix it? That's hard to believe.
genethemarine
Gene spanos -2
Sure....just ram this through and set the flaps for take off !
Bigger planes, more butts in the seats, more $ for the battle hardened
city of Chicago.

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!