Japan to let carriers remove 787 emergency beacons

It's normal to have issue's on something new, but quality control on things of this magnitude should be held to a higher standard.

So they're compromising safety to overcome an unsolved engineering mistake...again! AAIB official poicy: "safety comes second."

Jeff - the article is unclear (right now) and you could conclude that they will be taken out, plane in service while they check out the transmitter, then put it back in again. What is more likely to happen is a spare will be provided and checked before install, swapped with one on plane, that one checked, swapped with next plane, etc. The decision to do this is not AAIB, it is the Japan government. AAIB is not a regulator, they are the department that looks into crashes etc.

Not the main battery packs (Poor Yuasa can start breathing again). Now this appears to have been an 'American' subcontractor (Honeywell International Inc.) that may have a problem but is it their circuity that's to blame or the aircraft's? One isolated case so far but I'm guessing like the main batteries this emergency beacon may just be the latest causality of the 787's electrical system.

Just yet another one of the 'many' glitches that this air frame will have to have sorted out before the travelling public is safe as well as those minding their own business on the ground (if a 787 were ever to have teething problems while flying overhead).

What I find interesting is that all airliners BEFORE the 787 have used emergency beacons and we have yet to see these catch fire while parked up on the tarmac or in flight. Could it be that this has something to do with the 787's unique composite air frame and its electrical circuits, isolation and static dissipation controls which may be damaged and thus are causing havoc to other extremely sensitive control systems?

So far all these so called 'warning system alerts' that have caused a return to airport situation may just be malfunctions of the related computer warning systems on board because of electrical transient damage [voltage spikes and static discharge] of adjacent circuits' runaway through an 'unchecked' electrical bus. This can happen when circuits lose their 'ground to zero' protection in essence allowing power to 'take the path of least resistance' and damaging sensitive circuitry along the way.

It terms you'll understand, having a surge protector power bar is good for your computer and having UPS for that computer is even better as it acts like a balancing valve that keeps the power going steady. A lot of people don't think there's much difference between the cheap units and the expensive units. Some people don't even think they are worth getting because they are never working on anything that they couldn't just redo in 15 to 30 minutes. What EVERYONE in that mindset fails to understand is that these devices are 24/7 'filtering' and 'leveling' your power intake so that your computer's power supply keeps making clean step down power for your computer's motherboard and attached 'daughter boards' and drives. Over time dirty power getting through will 'pit' and 'score' circuit board components and the circuit board pathways itself which will lead to erratic and unpredictable operation.

So the next time you fire up your computer and if fails to boot once or twice here and there or just crashes out of the blue and then is fine again for an hour, a week or month, it may not be the operating system or a virus that is causing the problem but the fact you didn't protect your system from power surges and spikes or static discharge from lighting in the area because you didn't have a proper ground to zero circuit. This is one of the main reasons hard drives and Solid State Drives become corrupted thus failing to boot up.

Speaking booting up, Boeing is now suggesting that airlines now 'boot up' the 787 systems three (3!!!) prior to needing the aircraft for service. This is EVEN before they crew and meals are boarded and long before the cargo, luggage and passengers get on. Now that is efficiency for you having a brand new aircraft with super fast computers and systems that suck tonnes of power but must run started long before it's actually needed in case the thing catches fire or shorts out from the ridiculous power consumption required to 'boot up' the aircraft. Other airliners don't have this problem.

Speaking booting up, Boeing is now suggesting that airlines now 'boot up' the 787 systems three (3!!!) prior to needing the aircraft for service.

THREE? 3? Wow! 3 "what" though? In any case, planes are generally on power when they at at the stand either by umbilical chords or via APU. It's very rare to shutdown a plane whilst in service, except when it requires an overnight or extended stay at a remote airport. Most airlines try to avoid that because it is a waste having an revenue earning asset on the ground, and because or parking fees.

Honeywell made the beacon, but not the lithium-based battery. They don't do that. I wonder who did?

Removing this is dangerous! It's an added target enhancer for terrorist to target and airliner that cannot be tracked!!!

Not a smart move!

@skeeter - The article doesn't say the planes will fly without them, it says they will be removed for checks.

Well, people you have the power to say "no" , you are the customer. Personally I won't fly this plane .

"The article doesn't say the planes will fly without them,"

The article says allowed to OPERATE without them. Isn't that the same thing?

@Jeff - spot on. Either I missed that or the article morphed. Sounds daft though.

heres an idea, lets just remove all the problem items with the 787 and see if the airplane still actually flies. LOL id say a Airbus may be the safer bet for some airlines right about now!

LOL id say a Airbus may be the safer bet for some airlines right about now!

With tailfins that fall off in mid flight over the Atlantic? Flying is generally quite safe, but accidents will happen. Just for info, there are over 6,000 ELT units the same or similar as the ones being disabled on 787's in use today.

@miso like the JAL flight123 where the whole tail blew off the plane causing it to crash killing all but two people, second worst aviation accident in history.

This is a never ending story for Boeing!!!

'No Miso' said THREE? 3? Wow! 3 "what" though? In any case, planes are generally on power when they at at the stand either by umbilical chords or via APU. It's very rare to shutdown a plane whilst in service, except when it requires an overnight or extended stay at a remote airport. Most airlines try to avoid that because it is a waste having an revenue earning asset on the ground, and because or parking fees.

"The report says carriers should consider turning on the 787's lithium-ion batteries, computers and electrical system three hours prior to the first flight each day, and adding time between flights to give cockpit crews and mechanics adequate time to resolve any difficulties."

Found here in the 9th paragraph at the following URL:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323463704578493442061830754.html

The Wall Street Journal... a fairly reliable source.

Sorry about that I meant to say 'hours' as in three hours. I just wish that JT would add an 'edit' function so one could correct their errors or add details to clarify. I guess I shouldn't try posting something as I'm heading out the door. Speaking of which, I hear the trains starting up... gotta go.

Sorry about that I meant to say 'hours' as in three hours.

Which doesn't change my response. It's not like it is a PC that you need to switch on and rush-post a badly worded comment, is it? ;)

@miso like the JAL flight123 where the whole tail blew off the plane causing it to crash killing all but two people, second worst aviation accident in history.

That's actually my point. Despite that tragedy, how many other 747's have suffered the same fate? Accidents shouldn't happen, we know that.

'No Miso'

Which doesn't change my response. It's not like it is a PC that you need to switch on and rush-post a badly worded comment, is it? ;)

Silly wink aside...

I think you missed the OVERALL point that NO OTHER AIRLINERS in history have needed to be 'turned on' three hours prior to the first flight each day. FYI, computer have been in airliners for decades. The 787 is supposed to be a very efficient aircraft but this need to waste all this extra time coaxing it awake so it doesn't catch fire during the day is unacceptable.

Are you still going to say that doesn't change your response? So you are defending this three hours of 'warm up time' as being acceptable? As I said no other airliners need this three hour massaging.

FYI, there is not a single airline out there that doesn't put its aircraft 'to sleep' at the gate, remote stand, apron parking or around their maintenance areas at available airports overnight if there is no connecting service for that aircraft to continue on to until the next day. NO airline leaves their aircraft's APU or ground power running up the avionics while parked up overnight.

In layman terms even if the engines are not running, the ignition key is not left turned over to the accessory position so you can listen to the radio. You have to start up systems in the morning or whenever you need to put that aircraft back into service. The aircraft is shut down at the end of the operational day.

Dream-liner become Dream- nightmare.

25psot all new planes have problems and so does the dreamliner. The first passenger jets in service suffered a pair of accidents. There was a stress crack at the square windows. It cause a catastrophic fuselage failure. So far these problems have been minor.

Oh geeze!!! Why not just take the wings off and be done with it already?!!

YuriOtani 25psot all new planes have problems and so does the dreamliner. The first passenger jets in service suffered a pair of accidents. There was a stress crack at the square windows. It cause a catastrophic fuselage failure. So far these problems have been minor.

Sure and those square windows were on the de Havilland DH 106 Comet which was the first production commercial jetliner. The first one flew on July 27, 1949 at a time when COMPUTERS were not used to build airliners. The fuselage including the tail section was pretty much from a propeller airliner and metal fatigue was not an issue up to that point. Of course now flying up to 42,000ft introduced a whole new set of parameters to a fuselage from the propeller era where they usually stayed below 25,000ft. Expansion and contraction (flight cycle) took its toll on the square edge windows and rivet bonding technology of the time leading to failures. Just remember they had no computer modeling to see this failure coming let alone know it would occur because it was completely new.

Fast forward about 50-55 years later and Boeing is pushing the envelope with the 787. After more than three YEARS of delays they finally start rolling them out to the airlines but was that the right choice? At this point it's looking like the answer will be no unless Boeing finds the root cause of all these 'electrical glitches'.

I say 'electrical glitches' because so far ALL FAILURES and INCIDENCES have been due to items connected to the aircraft's wiring grid. With the exception of the Boston fuel leak caused by a valve being open during refueling (may have been electrically controlled but there was no mention of it being either a mechanical or a electrically controlled valve).

With all the technology available to Boeing back in 2005 to now to build the 787 and all the time spent and time overruns, you'd think they would be on top on the situation. They are not even close and have admitted it in their assessment of the issues. The band-aid solutions of putting the batteries in a firebox clearly show that Boeing doesn't know what the problem is.

As more and more seemingly non-related items fail on the 787 it will surely start to point out that they are 'truly connected' to each other because they are 'wired' into the 787's electrical grid. This is one of those cases where the 'Ghost in the Machine' really should start to scare engineers at Boeing to pull the 'emergency stop cord' and declare a worldwide grounding of the 787 until the problems are found.

If just one person dies from an 'accidental' problem with the 787 before the problems are found, Boeing will feel it.

If an entire 787 with all passengers and crew is lost because of these 'glitches', Boeing will be sued into the ground by all involved.

I for one hope that Boeing does the right thing and grounds all the 787s before somebody gets hurt or loses their life. Otherwise Boeing is gambling with the passengers and crews lives not to mention those below on the ground under the flightpath of one of these flawed 787s.

I think you missed the OVERALL point that NO OTHER AIRLINERS in history have needed to be 'turned on' three hours prior to the first flight each day.

OK, there is a lot to take in, appreciated. Dh/HS/BAe Trident had computers on board that allowed it to land in near zero visibility. An amazing feat at the time, when computing was in its infancy. Since then, computers have taken over more and more functions and now planes are basically flying datacentres. To switch them on and allow them to normalise would seem a prudent idea. Is three hours long? Maybe, but given the amount of factors they are calculating and amount of variables they need to process, having them up and stable so they can function efficiently sounds like a good idea. Part of the boot sequence may be to take in data like weather for processing route times, etc in which case a "history" of three hours would indeed seem quite logical. No. other. airliner. has. this. level. of. system. integration.

FYI, there is not a single airline out there that doesn't put its aircraft 'to sleep' at the gate, remote stand, apron parking or around their maintenance areas at available airports overnight if there is no connecting service for that aircraft to continue on to until the next day. NO airline leaves their aircraft's APU or ground power running up the avionics while parked up overnight.

Er, yep, I believe I said that.

The aircraft is shut down at the end of the operational day.

There is no operational "day" for an airliner. I think I already hinted that an aircraft on ground is not earning revenue. Especially true for long haul jets, ideally the only time it should be idle is at maintenance time. Occasionally, as in Ethiopian's case, it has to stay at a remote airport because return scheduling doesn't fit for destination airport, etc, but this is avoided as much as possible.