This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/business/faa-orders-grounding-of-us-operated-boeing-787s.html

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
F.A.A. Orders Grounding of U.S.-Operated Boeing 787s F.A.A. Grounds U.S.-Operated Boeing 787s
(35 minutes later)
The Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday that it was temporarily grounding all Boeing 787s operated by United States carriers after several incidents in recent weeks, including a battery fire, and after an All Nippon Airways flight in Japan was forced to make an emergency landing on Wednesday. The Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday that it was grounding all Boeing 787s operated by United States carriers until it can determine what caused a new type of battery to catch fire on two different planes in nine days.
The F.A.A.'s emergency airworthiness directive only applies directly to United Airlines, currently the sole American carrier using the new plane, with six 787s. But the agency said it would alert other aviation regulators to take similar action, and it seems likely that international carriers will comply with the directive. The decision follows incidents involving a plane parked in Boston and one in Japan that was forced to make an emergency landing on Wednesday morning after an alarm warning of smoke in the cockpit. The incidents prompted All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines to voluntarily ground their 787s.
Eight airlines now fly the plane, known as the Dreamliner. All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines in Japan own 24 of the 49 delivered by Boeing since November 2011. The other operators are Air India, Ethiopian Airlines, LAN Airlines of Chile, LOT of Poland and Qatar Airways. Orders for about 800 additional 787s are in the pipeline. The F.A.A.'s emergency directive, issued Wednesday night, initially applies to United Airlines, the only American carrier using the new plane so far, with six 787s. But the agency said it expected international regulators would take similar action. That would ground all 50 of the 787s delivered so far.
“The F.A.A. 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 F.A.A. said in a statement. Boeing, based in Chicago, has a lot riding on the 787, and its stock dropped nearly 3.4 percent on Wednesday to $74.34. The company has outlined ambitious plans to double its production rate to 10 planes a month by the end of 2013. It is also starting to build a stretched-out version and mulling an even larger one after that.
Thanks to its extensive use of lighter composite materials and more efficient engines, the 787 is expected to usher a new era of more fuel-efficient travel, particularly over long distances. The grounding by the F.A.A. — an unusual action for a new plane — focuses on one of the more risky design choices made by Boeing, namely to make extensive use of lithium-ion batteries aboard its airplanes for the first time. Until now, though, much of the attention on the 787 was focused on its use of lighter composite materials and more efficient engines, meant to usher in a new era of more fuel-efficient travel, particularly over long distances. The batteries are part of an electric system that replaces many mechanical and hydraulic ones common in previous jets.
But so far, the aircraft’s problems have been linked to a feature that had garnered much less attention until now: the 787’s extensive use of electric systems. Unlike modern passenger jets built in the past decades, which use mechanical and pneumatic systems to power hydraulic pumps, the 787 makes extensive use of electrical systems instead. The 787’s problems could also jeopardize another of its major features, its ability to fly long distances at a cheaper cost. The plane is currently certified to fly 180 minutes from an airport. The F.A.A. is unlikely to extend that to 330 minutes, as Boeing has promised, until all problems with the plane had been solved.
The emergency landing of the All Nippon plane on Wednesday followed a string of problems in the past month with the 787, including a battery fire, fuel leaks and a cracked cockpit window. All Nippon said the problems Wednesday involved the same lithium-ion batteries that caught fire last week in Boston on a Dreamliner operated by Japan Airlines. For Boeing, “it’s crucial to get it right,” said Richard L. Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va. “They’ve got a brief and closing window in which they can convince the public and they’re flying customers that this is not a problem child.”
In the episode early Wednesday, the 137 passengers and crew members aboard a flight from Yamaguchi Ube Airport, in western Japan, to Tokyo used emergency slides to leave the aircraft early after battery trouble and an “unusual smell” in the cockpit prompted its pilots to land instead at Takamatsu airport, according to All Nippon. The jet’s main battery in the front of the plane was later found to have become discolored and to be seeping electrolyte fluid, All Nippon said. The 787 uses two identical lithium-ion batteries, each about one-and-a-half times to twice the size of a car battery, sitting in equipment racks. One battery, in the rear electrical equipment bay, near the wings, is used to start the auxiliary power unit, a small engine in the tail that is used most often to provide energy for the plane while it is on the ground. The other one, called the main battery, starts the pilot’s computer displays and serves as a backup for flight systems.
Ryosei Nomura, a spokesman for All Nippon, said Wednesday that the airline was temporarily grounding all 17 of its Dreamliners for inspections, leading to the cancellation of 38 domestic and international flights. Japan Airlines also said it would ground the five Dreamliners it was operating; two other aircraft were already undergoing safety checks. The maker of the 787’s batteries, Japan’s GS Yuasa, has declined to comment on the problems so far.
Last week, the F.A.A. ordered a comprehensive review of the Dreamliner’s manufacturing and design, with a focus on the plane’s electrical systems. During a news conference last Thursday, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood made no mention of grounding Dreamliners. Boeing has defended the novel use of the batteries and said it had put in place a series of systems meant to prevent overcharging and overheating. In a conference call last week with reporters, Boeing’s chief engineer for the 787, Mike Sinnett, acknowledged that Boeing had long been aware of possible problems linked with lithium-ion batteries but it said it had built in many redundant features to keep any problems with the batteries to threaten the plane in flight. He said the batteries had not had any problems in 1.3 million hours of flight and that Boeing was trying to understand what had caused the problems.

Hiroko Tabuchi contributed reporting from Tokyo, and Bettina Wassener from Hong Kong.

Mr. Sinnett acknowledged that if the lithium-ion batteries ignite a fire, it is nearly impossible to put out because the batteries produce oxygen when combusting. Mr. Sinnett said that the plane was designed to survive precisely such an event in flight, when the cabin’s air pressure system protects passengers and allows the plane to vent the smoke outside. The plane is also designed, he said, to contain a fire to a small area.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: “Fire suppressants just won’t work on a situation like that,” he said in the conference call. “So something like that is very difficult to put out.”
Still, heat from the fire on the plane parked in Boston last week was so extreme that it melted the bolts holding the battery to the equipment rack. Firefighters had to use a hydraulic tool to cut it loose.
The solutions to the battery problem could be simple, analysts said, like encasing the battery in a stronger shell or monitoring the batteries more closely. But if Boeing had to switch to more conventional nickel-cadmium or lead-acid batteries, they would have to be larger, adding more weight to the plane, cutting into the plane’s fuel savings potential.
Wednesday’s emergency landing was the latest in a string of incidents for the 787, which also included an electrical failure, fuel leaks, and other smaller mishaps. But the latest event raised concerns that the 787’s problems were potentially more serious than previously thought and led to doubts about the plane’s safety and reliability.
Lithium-ion batteries provide power more quickly than conventional batteries and can be recharged quickly. They are increasingly used in cellphones, computers and electric cars but also have known risks of fires and explosions, particularly if they overheat or overcharge.
While the F.A.A. has long recognized these hazards, it still decided in 2007 to allow Boeing to use them in the 787 as long as it took a series of protective measures. At the time, the agency noted that “lithium-ion batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can lead to self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure” than conventional batteries.
As part of Wednesday’s emergency directive, the F.A.A. said it would “validate that the 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.”
Eight airlines now fly the 787, which entered service in November 2011. All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines in Japan own 24 of them. The other operators are Air India, Ethiopian Airlines, LAN Airlines of Chile, LOT of Poland and Qatar Airways. Orders for about 800 additional 787s are in the pipeline.
The airplane’s six power generators generate enough electricity to power 500 houses. By contrast, the Boeing 777, a larger aircraft, can generate only a fifth of the 787’s electric power.
Replacing batteries on the 787 with different ones, like metal hydrate batteries, is theoretically possible but would be costly, said Hans J. Weber, the president of Tecop International, an aviation consulting firm. He estimated that different batteries could double the weight of the current systems and would be twice the size.
“It’s not trivial, but it could be done,” Mr. Weber said.
Boeing expects to sell 5,000 787s in the next 20 years. It is counting on the Dreamliner in the global sales battle with Airbus, its European rival, which plans to introduce its own carbon composite plane, the A350, in the second half of 2014. Boeing has acknowledged that it outsourced too much of the work on the 787 to suppliers who were willing, collectively, to cover billions of dollars of the development costs, and many parts needed reworking.
The planes also cost so much to build that, even if the recent problems are solved, it could be many years before Boeing earns a profit on the project.
Boeing has said it expects to average a percentage profit in the low single digits on the first 1,100 planes, which could include deliveries into 2021. But David E. Strauss, an analyst at UBS, cautioned last month that Boeing’s production costs might remain too high for it to each a profit on any of the plane sales before 2021.
While problems are common with the introduction of a new model — including the Airbus A380, the Boeing 777 and the Boeing 747 — analysts say the issue could become a growing embarrassment for Boeing if travelers or airlines begin to lose confidence in the Dreamliner.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 16, 2013Correction: January 16, 2013

An earlier version of this article published online misstated the number of Boeing 787s already delivered worldwide. It is 49, not 50.

Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article published online, and an appended correction, misstated the number of Boeing 787s already delivered worldwide. It is 50, not 49.