Jan
17

What’s next for the 787?

The media loves fire on an aircraft. Fire scares people. Scaring sells news. Unfortunately, this comes to the detriment of Boeing and the 787 programme, which have faced intense scrutiny by media over a range of minor to hazardous issues, that question the safety of the aircraft.

The Boeing 787-8 suffered a series of incidents over the period, several of these a cracked windshield, minor fuel leak and brake issue are common operational issues. The FAA’s Emergency Airworthiness Directive (EAD) issued today focuses on the electrical architecture of the aircraft, specifically the safety of the GS Yuasa lithium-ion polymer battery, which has led to several incidents consistently traced back to the same issue:

04DEC2012 – United Airlines UA1146 diverted enroute due to an electrical malfunction. Multiple error messages, with flight crew requesting firefighters be vigilant of fuselage aft of wing area upon touchdown.

13DEC2012 – Qatar Airways grounded one of its 787 fleet due to an electrical fault upon arrival in Doha. CEO Akbar Al Baker wasn’t happy, jumped up and down, and shook his fists at Boeing.

17DEC2012 – United Airlines identifies a second electrical issue in a separate 787 to 04DEC incident.

07JAN2013 – Japan Airlines 787 JA829J suffered an incident on the ground at Tokyo Narita, in which smoke filled the cabin, and aft cargo compartment as a result of the APU battery in the rear electrical bay catching fire.

16JAN2013 – All Nippon Airlines (ANA) 787  JA804A operated NH692 diverted to Takamatsu when the crew received battery problem indications, and detected an acrid, burning smell in the cockpit. The aircraft was evacuated on landing.

Aviation safety regulators in India, Japan, Poland, Qatar and Chile have suspended 787 operations for an indefinite period, with Ethiopia and Europe’s EASA likely to follow suit.

The location of the Lithium Ion batteries in the Boeing 787-8. Image: Boeing ARFF Data.

Following the commencement of the regulatory review earlier this week, the FAA has determined that “the battery failures resulted in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke” there is sufficient enough risk of onboard fire, or other electrical issues, to cease the programme. An investigation already initiated by the National Transportation Safety Bureau (NTSB), will now widened and led by the FAA, supported by Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) and Boeing.

Why in the first instance did the FAA allow the aircraft to continue to fly after announcing the safety review?  Why was the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta, so emphatic in saying the 787 was safe after he had announced a review, and before the NTSB had concluded an investigation?

NTSB photo of the aft Lithium Ion battery following the fire on the JAL 787 in Boston. Image: NTSB.

During its certification period and the aircraft’s first 15 months in service the 787 has suffered ongoing problems related to its electrical system. The first aircraft to support fully electric architecture, this replaces pneumatic bleed air systems used to drive cabin pressure and onboard systems, and operates at a significantly higher capacity 1.5MW than any other aircraft.

To support these systems the 787 requires a battery that can efficiently produce enough energy, and currently only less-stable Lithium Ion polymer batteries offer that capability. Overheating or overcharging the battery creates ignitable metallic lithium.

After years of testing the batteries were approved by the regulator with special conditions, and demonstrated assurances that the system would could isolate and shutdown the batteries in this instance, and inflight fire would be contained. Yet the system safeguards failed to prevent either incident incident in Japan.

Navigating in uncharted territory.

Is the 787 programme a disaster? Certainly not, the 787 like the A380 is technological leap in the way aircraft are designed, built and flown. And, every revolution has its problems, see Airbus A380, Boeing 747, Comet, Viscount.

These aircraft all suffered significant problems following their Entry Into Service (EIS). Who remembers the 747 having significant engine problems? All were eventually rectified. It is part of the natural development of aircraft that changes are made, and redesigns worked in, and changes made again. The number of Airworthiness Directives in worldwide circulation for all aircraft types demonstrates this.

With proven operational experience no customer is yet to cancel their orders over this incident, and none are likely too. Airlines awaiting imminent deliver of aircraft will be temporarily inconvenienced, Akbar Al Baker may jump up and down, and Boeing’s reputation will take another hit, but that doesn’t mean they lack faith in the aircraft’s future. The more resources pushed into engineering the 787 now, the better it will become.

As with the DC-10 and the A380 after QF32, it’s no surprise travellers will book away from the 787 for a period of time, concerned about reliability. But they will come back, they have loved the 787 to date. With this level of regulatory and developmental scrutiny we’re going to end up with an exceptionally safe next generation aircraft. It’s a matter of when, not if that happens.

The full statement from the FAA. Boeing’s full statement on 787 action.

This paper is excellent background reading on the FAA’s only other commercial grounding of the McDonnell Douglas DC-10.

 

 

Jan
17

FAA issues Airworthiness Directive Ground Boeing 787

The following is the FAA’s initial statement on its order for operators to temporarily cease Boeing 787 operations. We will develop this story as the day goes on:

“As a result of an in-flight, Boeing 787 battery incident earlier today in Japan, the FAA will issue an emergency airworthiness directive (AD) to address a potential battery fire risk in the 787 and require operators to temporarily cease operations.  Before further flight, operators of U.S.-registered, Boeing 787 aircraft must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the batteries are safe.

“The FAA will work with the manufacturer and carriers to develop a corrective action plan to allow the U.S. 787 fleet to resume operations as quickly and safely as possible.The in-flight Japanese battery incident followed an earlier 787 battery incident that occurred on the ground in Boston on January 7, 2013. The AD is prompted by this second incident involving a lithium ion battery.

“The battery failures resulted in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke on two Model 787 airplanes. The root cause of these failures is currently under investigation. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in damage to critical systems and structures, and the potential for fire in the electrical compartment.Last Friday, the FAA announced a comprehensive review of the 787’s critical systems with the possibility of further action pending new data and information.

“In addition to the continuing review of the aircraft’s design, manufacture and assembly, the agency also will validate that 787 batteries and the battery system on the aircraft are in compliance with the special condition the agency issued as part of the aircraft’s certification.

“United Airlines is currently the only U.S. airline operating the 787, with six airplanes in service. When the FAA issues an airworthiness directive, it also alerts the international aviation community to the action so other civil aviation authorities can take parallel action to cover the fleets operating in their own countries.”

Click here for more coverage on the 787 EAD action.

Jan
13

In orbit on Endeavour.

Happy New Year from the team at Carry-On! After a few weeks off we’re back, and our carry-on is packed with a new round of exciting stories and features planned for 2013. We’ll start you off with some pictures of Space Shuttle Endeavour from Carry-On’s visit to the California Science Centre in late 2012.

 

Nov
18

Australia’s obsession with engaging Asia: Can aviation play a role?

爱国 àiguó: to loves ones country/patriotism. Image: AP

It’s been awhile since I’ve written a post, and to kick things off again I thought I’d take a look at Australia’s renewed obsession with Asia, triggered by the Australian Government’s recently released Asian White Paper.

I went to a fascinating forum last week on Australia’s Engagement in Asia through Future Foreign Policy. Hosted by AsiaLink at Melbourne University, and to be broadcast on newsline this Thursday November 22, the Q&A style event saw Liberal MP Kelly O’Dwyer and Labor MP Richard Marles answer audience questions on Asia and what we as a country are trying to do with/about it. I say fascinating because it became clear during the course of the forum from the disconnected and vague responses that past the fact it’s there, good for foreign investment, and we should be doing something about it, neither Kelly or Richard have much clue about Asia.

The audience for this event were a culturally diverse bunch. Over 150 people who from the various questions, were already very ‘engaged’ with clear personal interest or involvement with Asia. Most of the people seemed to emigrated from, or lived, studied, worked overseas and at the very least the majority spoke an Asian language or had a son/daughter learning one. So why was Richard’s best answer to a question on how should young Australian’s engage with Asia, to “go out and make friends, just go overseas study, make friends”. Clearly sir, we’ve already done that.

The introductions were centred on reeling off growth statistics from what I like to call the ‘Asian Wheel of Fortune’, as the reason we need to engage. We were told how Australia is an activist middle power, great at managing countries smaller than us, or acting as a go between. We don’t need to choose between America and China, yet we aren’t willing to accommodate China unless it sticks to the rules based international system. Forgetting that America isn’t the best country to follow on that one.

Another audience member wanted to know if Asia wanted to engage with Australia. Do they really? An emphatic “Yes!”, apparently they do, because as we have seen, they want to buy our mineral resources. But I really don’t think we can consider buying iron ore engaging across multiple sectors.

An important cultural question popped up, Korea and Japan are great at using their soft cultural power overseas to promote design, art, music. “Why doesn’t Australia move out of sport and do that to?” Luckily, both Kelly and Richard agreed this would be great! The Japanese went wild for the Australian Ballet, but when they wanted to go to China last year to tour, there was no funding so they went to New York instead. Apparently it’s cheaper to fly twice the distance.

The Australian Government has been there and done this before in the 1980s and early 1990s never to follow through. From the crowd of people gathered at Melbourne University there is clearly a growing population in Australia that wants us to be involved with something greater than Bali and Phuket. The intention of both parties is right, but everyone seems to blindly fumbling when it comes to what to do.

As opaque as China’s leadership is, behind Thursday’s unveiling of a new China management team we saw a government fully aware that’s economy is slowing and needs to do something else. An economy in which Australia has placed the good majority of its eggs. If the Chinese government can see it needs to diversify, why can’t Australia’s?

How does aviation fit in?

Aviation featured vaguely in the Asian Century White Paper, with a small case study into Indian Investment into Gippsland Aero, and the failings of Sydney Airport. That was it. Australia’s aviation industry is growing, we can boast of one of the world’s safest aviation regimes, with a mass of incredibly talented people across airlines, air traffic control, training, safety, regulation. Combining this with perhaps the world’s most globalised industry, the aviation industry seems to be the perfect vestibule through which to engage with our northern neighbours. If the government and the general population are truly serious that is. Are you onboard?

The Australian Government’s Australia in the Asian Century White Paper

Sep
01

Australia-EU ETS link should deliver savings to Australia’s aviation industry.

The ETS link induced reduction in carbon price to $10 mt should reduce the impact on REX’s operating costs by close to $1.5 million. REX’s current CO2 output is approx. 115,000 mt p.a.

The air transport industry, so governments are convinced, is slowly destroying the environment. Unfortunately, aeroplanes are also big, leave easy-to-spot contrails in the sky, and have become a fundamental factor in global trade and travel. This puts the industry smack in the middle of the ETS bullseye of Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for Climate Action, and the global air transport industry’s number one archenemy.

The problem is airlines are limited in their ability to reduce fuel consumption or CO2 without significant capital investment to operate fuel-efficient aircraft or restricting demand. The ETS also provides little incentive for operators to reduce their usage. As Dr Elena Ares noted in a briefing paper to British Parliament, this price “is a significant amount for power plants, steel mills and the like, but translates into an insignificant 3.8 cents per liter of aviation kerosene”.

A European Commission Impact Assessment has already acknowledged that the EU ETS will only reduce aviation emissions by about 3%, in reality offsetting one year of industry emissions growth. Still the EU perseveres.

In a political and PR coup for their ETS programmes, the European Union and the Australian Government will hitch their schemes together under an interim link that will synchronise carbon pricing from 1 July 2015.

Australia’s current Government has done little to support the industry selectively applying the ETS to the regional aviation sector but not international operations, on top of an increase the Federal Government’s decision to increase fuel excises, new security charges, and end the Enroute Charges Payment Scheme.

So what does this ETS link mean for Australia’s aviation industry operators? Relatively good news actually, the scheme integration likely to deliver a short-term cost reprieve.

“No later than 1 July 2018” both ETS schemes will be fully linked permitting full trading of carbon permits and allowing Australia’s airlines to purchase EU emissions permits and use them in Australia. In addition, Australia will abandon its own pricing scheme, adopting the EU price of less than $10 per tonne.

This cheaper price, will translate into a lower excise added to the cost of aviation fuel. It could also see Australia’s regional airlines heading to Europe to purchase cheaper credits in the EU market to use back home. Eventually system prices will rise to €15 per tonne, but this will still be cheaper than the initial carbon price of $23 per tonne at current exchange rates.

Gillard is also treading a fine geopolitical line. Her move has also reversed Australia’s opposition to the EU ETS on aviation, effectively endorsing its obscure legality. Many countries still see charging for extraterritorial emissions on foreign aircraft as an invasion of sovereignty. Not the right line to be treading when our biggest trading partner is China, is already demonstrating to the European Union how far it is willing to go to protect its interests.

Aug
03

Deciphering the future of China’s aviation industry. China Airborne by James Fallows.

 

china_airborne_cover.png

China’s aviation industry is growing and with it so are the aspirations of many millions of Mainland Chinese. Predicted to become the worlds largest market for business and general aviation, China’s middle class unsatisfied with simply owning an Audi or two, increasingly desires to take to the skies in their own aircraft. China’s aviation industry seems unstoppable, but is it really on the verge of take off?

James Fallows’ (journalist, China correspondent and plane enthusiast) latest book China Airborne, puts two of my favourite interests, planes and China, under one communist-revolutionary-zeal-esque cover.

Fallows’ 236 page narrative sets about detailing the development of China’s aviation industry, how it has evolved, the factors influencing its development and the future direction of the industry. Writing with perspective and humour, Fallows turns what could have been a dull read into a fascinating insight into the status of aerospace and aviation in today’s China.

Readers are taken through a history of China’s aviation pioneers, and the unique cultural factors that have influenced the development of China’s aerospace industry. Fallows details the important roles Boeing and the FAA have played China’s aviation safety, and we are introduced to the Chinese and foreign ‘middlemen’ who are facilitating the next stage of the industry’s development.

China is determined to build an aerospace sector equivalent in strength and quality to others around the world. Fallows explores the factors influencing the development of an aerospace industry with ‘Chinese characteristics’ including its achievements and inherent limitations. There is also discussion of companies taking advantage of the explosion to introduce navigation technology, which is delivering improvements in environmental efficiency and safety in Tibetan operations.

We experience first hand the restrictions of China’s general aviation industry as he joins a friend on a cross-country Cirrus flight from Changsha to Zhuhai – GA never took off in China, because of the military’s control of airspace. And meet the provincial officials and aviation visionaries, with no aircraft, but runways at their disposal, who aim to take general aviation mainstream

Disappointingly the final two chapters could have done with far more discussion about aeroplanes. Losing their flight path, the chapters focus more on a general discussion of China’s current political situation and development. Although, those with little knowledge of the extent of China’s internal trials and tribulations will learn a great deal.

Fun and full of Chinese idiosyncrasies, and lacking complex jargon, China Airborne is well worth the time.

Go back to top