Saturday, October 5, 2013
A decision was issued today by the Honourable Sean Harrington of the Federal Court in file T-1388-13: IN THE MATTER OF SHAWN BEVINS ET AL. v. REGISTRAR OF FIREARMS ET AL.
A decision was issued today by the Honourable Sean Harrington of the Federal Court in
file T-1388-13:
IN THE MATTER OF SHAWN BEVINS ET AL. v. REGISTRAR OF FIREARMS
ET AL.
Summary: The Court has stayed the motion for an interlocutory injunction and all
proceedings herein pending the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Attorney
General of Quebec’s application for leave to appeal and to stay a decision by the Quebec
Court of Appeal, in the matter of Procureur general du Québec v. Procureur general du
Canada.
Although Parliament abolished the long-gun registry last year with respect to nonprohibited
weapons and ordered the destruction of records that had been collected, those
records have not been destroyed vis-à-vis Quebec residents. Quebec has taken the
position that the destruction of those records would be unconstitutional.
The applicants, Canada’s National Firearms Association, its vice-president, and a Quebec
gun dealer, sought an interlocutory injunction to have these records destroyed, as the
Quebec Court of Appeal has held the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act to be valid.
The Federal Court refused to rule on the motion for an interlocutory injunction, but rather
stayed the motion as Quebec has an application for leave to appeal the decision of the
Quebec Court of Appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada.
A copy of the decision can be obtained via the Web site of the Federal Court
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/T-1388-13%20Bulletin%20EN.pdf
Friday, October 4, 2013
Russia halts adoptions to Sweden :(!
"It's terrible. We have 13 children in Russian orphanages today who have been offered to parents in Sweden who they have actually met," said Jonas Friberg at the Adoptioncentrum agency in Sweden to Sveriges Television (SVT).
Representatives of the Russian authorities and the Swedish embassy met yesterday to discuss the legal situation with regard to adoptions of Russian children. Russia is seeking to sign agreements with individual countries to ensure that Russian children do not come to LGBT parents, according to the SVT report.
The Swedish Foreign Ministry has confirmed that no formal negotiations have begun, but the meeting concerned an attempt to clarify what the new law means in practice.
Russian politician Vitaly Milonov meanwhile called homosexuals "perverts" in an interview with SVT broadcast on Thursday, arguing that children would be better off staying in Russian orphanages.
"The perverts? No, it is unacceptable. Homosexuals are 'perverts' and should absolutely not be allowed to adopt children," he said. "Children who grow up in that kind of environment are destroyed psychologically."
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law a bill banning "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations to minors" on June 30th this year.
Critics of the law have argued that its vague wording in effect outlaws any form of expression of LGBT rights, including Pride parades, holding hands or kissing in public.
The new law has furthermore cast a shadow over the upcoming Winter Olympics in Sochi with some international gay rights groups calling for a boycott. This call has however been rejected by some Russian LGBT activists who argue that it is counter-productive.
Swedish high-jumper Emma Green Tregarocaused a storm of controversy recently when she painted her nails in rainbow colours at the World Athletics Championships in a "silent protest" against the Russian law.
Russian pole-vaulter Yelena Isinbayeva slammed the Swede, saying her actions were "disrespectful to our country".
Thursday, October 3, 2013
To circumcise a child without medical reasons and without the child's consent, runs contrary... to the child's human rights and the fundamental principles of medical ethics,"
"
To circumcise a child without medical reasons and without the child's consent, runs contrary... to the child's human rights and the fundamental principles of medical ethics," they write in a debate article in the Dagens Nyheter daily on Saturday.
The ombudsman Fredrik Malmberg, together with representatives from the Swedish Society of Medicine (SLS), the Swedish Society of Health Professionals (Vårdförbundet), the Swedish Paediatric Society (BLF) and the Swedish Association of Pediatric Surgeons (SLF), argues that Swedish law requires that the child's will be taken into account wherever possible.
Circumcision is a procedure which is typically carried out at a very young age and it is this issue of consent which is paramount, they argue.
"We consider circumcision of boys without the child's consent to be in contravention of article 12 of UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) which gives children the right to have an opinion in matters which concern them."
They furthermore argue for a change in Swedish legislation in order to meet the human rights of the child and medical ethics.
The issue has become topical in Sweden in recent weeks following the submission of a motion to parliament from the Sweden Democrats calling for an outright ban on the procedure.
Furthermore on Monday September 30th children's ombudsmen from across Scandinavia will meet together with prominent medical professionals in Oslo to discuss the issue.
The Ombudsman for Children in Sweden is a government agency which represents the interests and rights on the basis of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
To circumcise a child without medical reasons and without the child's consent, runs contrary... to the child's human rights and the fundamental principles of medical ethics," they write in a debate article in the Dagens Nyheter daily on Saturday.
The ombudsman Fredrik Malmberg, together with representatives from the Swedish Society of Medicine (SLS), the Swedish Society of Health Professionals (Vårdförbundet), the Swedish Paediatric Society (BLF) and the Swedish Association of Pediatric Surgeons (SLF), argues that Swedish law requires that the child's will be taken into account wherever possible.
Circumcision is a procedure which is typically carried out at a very young age and it is this issue of consent which is paramount, they argue.
"We consider circumcision of boys without the child's consent to be in contravention of article 12 of UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) which gives children the right to have an opinion in matters which concern them."
They furthermore argue for a change in Swedish legislation in order to meet the human rights of the child and medical ethics.
The issue has become topical in Sweden in recent weeks following the submission of a motion to parliament from the Sweden Democrats calling for an outright ban on the procedure.
Furthermore on Monday September 30th children's ombudsmen from across Scandinavia will meet together with prominent medical professionals in Oslo to discuss the issue.
The Ombudsman for Children in Sweden is a government agency which represents the interests and rights on the basis of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Philanthropists Honoured at Opening of SickKids' Peter Gilgan Centre
Philanthropists Honoured at Opening of SickKids' Peter Gilgan Centre
A few weeks ago we took you inside SickKids’ new 21-storey research tower on Bay Street just north of Dundas. The state-of-the-art Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning will house over 2,000 SickKidsscientists, technicians, researchers, educators, and admin staff within its 750,000 square-feet of laboratories, common areas and six unique research “neighbourhoods”, each with their own three-storey atrium.
On Tuesday morning, the building—built largely through the generosity of those whose lives have been touched by SickKids Hospital—opened its doors, and many of the donors who made the tower possible were on hand, including philanthropist and CEO of Mattamy Homes, lead donor Peter Gilgan.
While Mr. Gilgan’s stunning donation of $40 million led to the facility named in his honour, he is just one of the over 13,000 donors that helped bring this project together.
The Diamond Schmitt Architects-designed facility was built for a cost of $400 million, with partial funding from all three levels of government. While government funding certainly played a part in the project’s construction, half of the funding – that’s $200 million – came from massive philanthropic contributions, fundraising drives, and SickKids staff, who collectively pooled over $5 million themselves.
“This campaign was fueled by the generosity of the community who saw the potential of bringing child health researchers together under one roof” said Ted Garrard, President and CEO or SickKids Foundation. And with the building now completed, that generosity is soon to pay off through the medical and technological advances that will undoubtedly be discovered in this facility. “This building, and the activities that will take place within these walls, symbolize our promise to continue the strong legacy of science, discovery, innovation and learning at SickKids”, said Mary Jo Haddad, President and CEO of The Hospital for Sick Children.
The opening included speeches from government officials, SickKids doctors and contributing donors, as well as remarks from the building’s namesake, Peter Gilgan, and the building’s designer, Don Schmitt of Diamond Schmitt Architects.
Mr. Schmitt spoke of the the firm’s unique design for the building which makes use of several three-storey atrium spaces, each serving a different “research neighbourhood” with a large common area capable of putting your office’s water cooler to shame.
Using spiral staircases to connect the grouped floors of these neighbourhoods, architects at Diamond Schmitt were able to reduce the amount of total elevators needed in the building while providing staff working in the facility with common ground meeting spaces within the research neighbourhood, which have been shown to foster the cross-pollination of ideas in academic and work settings.
To officially mark the opening of the facility, the ribbon—in this case a construction paper chain—was cut by Hunter Kemp, a 6-year-old leukemia survivor and current Patient Ambassador for SickKids.
With the doors to this research facility now open, scientists and researchers can now accelerate their groundbreaking work in one of the most technologically advanced research centres in the world—all thanks to the multiple donors and philanthropists who funded the project. To recognize the generous donations that made the research tower possible, we include the list below of all donors who provided $1 million or more.
$40 million
PETER GILGAN
$10 million or more
1 ANONYMOUS DONOR
$5,000,000 to $9,999,999
THE ESTATE OF RICHARD H. CLARK IN HONOUR OF MARGARET LIMACHER
THE DILAWRI FOUNDATION
THE GARRON FAMILY
THE HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN AND SICKKIDS FOUNDATION STAFF
MINING4LIFE: SUPPORTING MINING COMMUNITIES WORLDWIDE
RALLY FOR KIDS WITH CANCER SCAVENGER CUP
SICKKIDS LEADERS
$2,500,000 to $4,999,999
COAST TO COAST AGAINST CANCER FOUNDATION AND JENNA’S ANGELS
JOHN FRANCIS AND SUSAN CASKEY
EDWARD AND SUZANNE ROGERS AND THE ROGERS FOUNDATION
$1,000,000 to $2,499,999
THE CADILLAC FAIRVIEW CORPORATION LIMITED
CARLO FIDANI FOUNDATION
MARIYAM AND BASHIR DAWOOD
IN HONOUR OF ALFREDO DE GASPERIS
THE DELANEY FAMILY FOUNDATION
AL AND ROLANDE FLOOD
HAROLD AND BERNICE GROVES
THE ROBERT HARDING FOUNDATION
HEATWAVE SPORTS INC.
PAUL B. HELLIWELL FOUNDATION
TIM AND LANA HOCKEY
WARREN IRWIN
DONALD K. JACKSON FAMILY FOUNDATION
LIZA MAUER AND ANDREW SHEINER
EARLE AND JANICE O’BORN
GAIL AND DAVID O’BRIEN
THE PITBLADO FAMILY
THE SALTER SOCIETY
IN HONOUR OF SICKKIDS NURSES
JOHN AND MELINDA THOMPSON
UPPER UNIONVILLE GROUP
THE WOLFOND FAMILY
DONALD AND SALLY WRIGHT
Additional information and pre-construction renderings can be found at our dataBase listing, linked below. Want to get involved in the discussion? Check out the associated Forum threads, or voice your opinion in the comments section provided at the bottom of the page.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Monday, September 30, 2013
Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems 30-2013
I
n the Boeing 787 Dreamliner's first year of service, at least four aircraft suffered from electrical system problems stemming from itslithium-ion batteries. Although teething problems are common within the first year of a new aircraft design's life, after a number of incidents including an electrical fire aboard an All Nippon Airways 787, and a similar fire found by maintenance workers on a landedJapan Airlines 787 at Boston's Logan International Airport, the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ordered a review into the design and manufacture of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, following five incidents in five days involving the aircraft, mostly involved with problems with the batteries and electrical systems. This was followed with a full grounding of the entire Boeing 787 fleet, the first such grounding since that of DC-10s in 1979.[1] It is reported that the plane has had two major battery thermal runawayevents in 52,000 flight hours, which was substantially below the 10 million flight hours predicted by Boeing, and had done so in a dangerous manner.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Timeline
2 Groundings
3 Solution
4 See also
5 References
Timeline
In December 2012, Boeing CEO James McNerney told media outlets that the problems were no greater than those experienced by the company with the introduction of other new models, such as the Boeing 777.[3] However, on January 7, 2013, a battery overheated and started a fire in an empty 787 operated by Japan Airlines (JAL) at Boston's Logan International Airport.[4][5] On January 9, United Airlinesreported a problem in one of its six 787s with the wiring in the same area as the battery fire on JAL's airliner; subsequently, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board opened a safety probe.[6]
On January 11, 2013, the FAA announced a comprehensive review of the 787's critical systems, including the design, manufacture and assembly of the aircraft. U.S. Department of Transportation secretary Ray LaHood stated the administration was "looking for the root causes" behind the recent issues. The head of the FAA, Michael Huerta, said that so far nothing found "suggests [the 787] is not safe".[7] Japan's transport ministry have also launched an investigation in response.[8]
On January 16, 2013, an All Nippon Airways (ANA) 787 made an emergency landing at Takamatsu Airport on Shikoku Island after the flight crew received a computer warning that there was smoke inside one of the electrical compartments.[9][10] ANA said that there was an error message in the cockpit citing a battery malfunction. Passengers and crew were evacuated using the emergency slides.[11]According to The Register, there are no fire-suppression systems in the electrical compartments holding batteries, only smoke detectors.[12]
US-based aviation regulators' oversight into the 2007 safety approval and FAA certification of the 787 has now come under scrutiny, as a key US Senate committee prepares for a hearing into the procedures of aviation safety certification "in coming weeks". However, an FAA spokesperson defended their 2007 safety certification of the 787 by saying, "the whole aviation system is designed so that if the worst case happens, there are systems in place to prevent that from interfering with other systems on the plane".[13]
On February 12, 2013 the Wall Street Journal reported that "Aviation safety investigators are examining whether the formation of microscopic structures known as dendrites inside the Boeing Co. 787's lithium-ion batteries played a role in twin incidents that prompted the fleet to be grounded nearly a month ago."[14]
Groundings
On January 16, 2013, both major Japanese airlines ANA and JAL announced that they were voluntarily grounding or suspending flights for their fleets of 787s after multiple incidents involving different 787s, including emergency landings. These two carriers operate 24 of the 50 Dreamliners delivered to date.[15][16] The grounding could cost ANA over $1.1 million a day.[17]
Wikinews has related news:FAA orders review of Boeing 787 Dreamliners following week of incidents
On January 16, 2013, the FAA issued an emergency airworthiness directive ordering all U.S.-based airlines to ground their Boeing 787s until yet-to-be-determined modifications are made to the electrical system to reduce the risk of the battery overheating or catching fire.[18] This is the first time that the FAA has grounded an airliner type since 1979.[1] The FAA also announced plans to conduct an extensive review of the 787's critical systems. The focus of the review will be on the safety of the lithium-ion batteries[1] made of lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2). The 787 battery contract was signed in 2005,[19] when LiCoO2 batteries were the only type of lithium aerospace battery available, but since then newer and safer[20] types (such as LiFePO), which provide less reaction energy during thermal runaway, have become available.[21][22] FAA approved a 787 battery in 2007 with nine "special conditions".[23][24] A battery approved by FAA (through Mobile Power Solutions) was made by Rose Electronics using Kokam cells,[25] but the batteries installed in the 787 are made by Yuasa.[26]
Three All Nippon Airways 787 aircraft grounded at Tokyo on January 27, 2013
On January 20, the NTSB declared that overvoltage was not the cause of the Boston incident, as voltage did not exceed the battery limit of 32 V,[27] and the charging unit passed tests. The battery had signs of short circuiting and thermal runaway.[28] Despite this, on January 24 the NTSB announced that it had not yet pinpointed the cause of the Boston fire; the FAA will not allow U.S.-based Dreamliners to fly again until the problem is found and corrected. In a press briefing that day, NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said that the NTSB had found evidence of failure of multiple safety systems designed to prevent these battery problems, and stated that fire must never happen on an airplane.[29] The Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) has said on January 23 that the battery in ANA jets in Japan reached a maximum voltage of 31 V (lower than the 32 V limit like the Boston JAL 787), but had a sudden unexplained voltage drop[30] to near zero.[31] All cells had signs of thermal damage before thermal runaway.[32] ANA and JAL had replaced several 787 batteries before the mishaps.[31] As of January 29, 2013, JTSB approved the Yuasa factory quality control[33][34] while the American NTSB continues to look for defects in the Boston battery.[35]
Industry experts disagree on consequences of the grounding: Airbus is confident that Boeing will resolve the issue[36] and that no airlines will switch plane type,[37] while other experts see the problem as "costly"[38] and "could take upwards of a year".[39]
The only U.S.-based airline that operates the Dreamliner is United Airlines, which has six.[40] Chile's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGAC) grounded LAN Airlines' three 787s.[41] The Indian Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) directed Air India to ground its six Dreamliners. The Japanese Transport Ministry made the ANA and JAL groundings official and indefinite following the FAA announcement.[42] The European Aviation Safety Agency has also followed the FAA's advice and grounded the only two European 787s operated by LOT Polish Airlines.[43] Qatar Airways has announced that they are grounding their five Dreamliners.[44] Ethiopian Air was the final operator to announce temporary groundings of its four Dreamliners.[45]
As of January 17, 2013, all 50 of the aircraft delivered to date have been grounded.[45][46][47] On January 18, Boeing announced that it was halting 787 deliveries until the battery problem is resolved.[48] On February 4, 2013, the FAA said it will permit Boeing to conduct test flights of 787 aircraft to gather additional data.[49]
Solution
The Federal Aviation Administration decided on April 19, 2013 to allow US Dreamliners return to service after changes were made to their battery systems.[50] Japanese authorities announced they were doing the same for their airplanes. The causes of the battery failures are still unknown.
See also
Aviation portal
Lithium Ion Batteries and Safety
Lithium Cobalt Oxide (LiCoO2)
Plug-in electric vehicle fire incidents (related to lithium-ion batteries)
UPS Airlines Flight 6, a crash caused by the thermal runaway of its lithium-ion battery cargo.
References^
Jump up to:a b c "Dreamliner: Boeing 787 planes grounded on safety fears". BBC News. Retrieved January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ "Accident: ANA B788 near Takamatsu on Jan 16th 2013, battery problem and burning smell on board". Aviation Herald. Retrieved February 8, 2013.
Jump up^ "Boeing: Problems with 787 Dreamliner "Normal"". Frequent Business Traveler. December 16, 2012. Retrieved December 16, 2012.
Jump up^ "Fire aboard empty 787 Dreamliner prompts investigation". CNN. January 8, 2013. Retrieved January 8, 2013.
Jump up^ "Second faulty Boeing Dreamliner in Boston". BBC. January 8, 2013. Retrieved January 8, 2013.
Jump up^ "U.S. Opens Dreamliner Safety Probe". The Wall Street Journal. January 9, 2013. Retrieved January 9, 2013.
Jump up^ "Boeing 787 Dreamliner to be investigated by US authorities". The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2013.
Jump up^ Mukai, Anna (January 15, 2013). "Japan to Investigate Boeing 787 Fuel Leak as FAA Reviews". Bloomberg. Retrieved January 20, 2013.
Jump up^ "全日空Ｂ７８７型機から煙 乗客避難・高松空港". NHK. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 16, 2013.
Jump up^ "Top Japan airlines ground Boeing 787s after emergency". BBC. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 16, 2013.
Jump up^ "A Boeing 787 plane makes an emergency landing in Japan". BBC. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 16, 2013.
Jump up^ Iain Thomson (25 January 2013). "Boeing 787 fleet grounded indefinitely as investigators stumped". The Register. Retrieved 8 February 2013.
Jump up^ "Boeing 787's battery woes put US approval under scrutiny". Business Standard. 2013-01-23. Retrieved 2013-02-22.
Jump up^ Ostrower, Jon (2013-02-11). "Microscopic 'Dendrites' a Focus in Boeing Dreamliner Probe - WSJ.com". Online.wsj.com. Retrieved 2013-02-22.
Jump up^ "Japanese airlines ground Boeing 787s after emergency landing". Reuters. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 16, 2013.
Jump up^ "787 emergency landing: Japan grounds entire Boeing Dreamliner fleet". The Guardian. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 16, 2013.
Jump up^ "Boeing Dreamliners grounded worldwide on battery checks". Reuters. January 17, 2013. Retrieved January 21, 2013.
Jump up^ "FAA Press Release". Federal Aviation Administration. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ "Thales selects GS Yuasa for Lithium ion battery system in Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner". GS Yuasa. Retrieved January 18, 2013.
Jump up^ Dudley, Brier (January 17, 2013). "Lithium-ion batteries pack a lot of energy — and challenges". The Seattle Times. Retrieved January 24, 2013. "iron phosphate “has been known to sort of be safer.”"
Jump up^ Dalløkken, Per Erlien (January 17, 2013). "Her er Dreamliner-problemet" (in Norwegian). Teknisk Ukeblad. Retrieved January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ "Energy storage technologies - Lithium". Securaplane. Retrieved January 24, 2013.
Jump up^ "Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787– 8 Airplane; Lithium Ion Battery Installation". FAA / Federal Register. October 11, 2007. Retrieved January 30, 2013. "NM375 Special Conditions No. 25–359–SC"
Jump up^ Alwyn Scott and Mari Saito. "FAA approval of Boeing 787 battery under scrutiny".NBC News / Reuters. Retrieved January 24, 2013.
Jump up^ Supko / Iverson (2011). "Li battery UN test report applicability". NextGov. Retrieved January 23, 2013.
Jump up^ Brewin, Bob (January 22, 2013). "A 2006 BATTERY FIRE DESTROYED BOEING 787 SUPPLIER’S FACILITY". NextGov. Retrieved January 23, 2013.
Jump up^ Nantel, Kelly (January 20, 2013). "NTSB Provides Third Investigative Update on Boeing 787 Battery Fire in Boston". NTSB. Retrieved January 21, 2013.
Jump up^ "NTSB Press Release". NTSB. January 26, 2013. Retrieved January 24, 2013.
Jump up^ Matthew Weld; Jad Mouwad (2013-01-25). "Protracted Fire Inquiry Keeping 787 on Ground". New York Times. Retrieved 2013-01-26.
Jump up^ Mitra-Thakur, Sofia (January 23, 2013). "Japan says 787 battery was not overcharged". Engineering & Technology. Retrieved January 23, 2013.
^ Jump up to:a b CHRISTOPHER DREW, HIROKO TABUCHI and JAD MOUAWAD (January 29, 2013). "Boeing 787 Battery Was a Concern Before Failure". The New York Times. Retrieved January 30, 2013.
Jump up^ Hradecky, Simon (Feb 5th 2013). "ANA B788 near Takamatsu on Jan 16th 2013, battery problem and burning smell on board". Aviation Herald. Retrieved Feb 6th 2013.
Jump up^ TABUCHI, HIROKO (January 28, 2013). "No Quality Problems Found at Battery Maker for 787". The New York Times. Retrieved January 30, 2013.
Jump up^ Chris Cooper and Kiyotaka Matsuda (January 28, 2013). "GS Yuasa Shares Surge as Japan Ends Company Inspections". BusinessWeek. Retrieved January 29, 2013.
Jump up^ Knudson, Peter (29 January 2013). "NTSB issues sixth update on JAL Boeing 787 battery fire investigation". NTSB. Retrieved 29 January 2013.
Jump up^ "Airbus CEO `Confident' Boeing Will Find Fix for 787" Bloomberg, January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ Robert Wall & Andrea Rothman (January 17, 2013). "Airbus Says A350 Design Is ‘Lower Risk’ Than Troubled 787". Bloomberg. Retrieved January 17, 2013. "“I don’t believe that anyone’s going to switch from one airplane type to another because there’s a maintenance issue,” Leahy said. “Boeing will get this sorted out.”"
Jump up^ "`Big Cost' Seen for Boeing Dreamliner Grounding" Bloomberg, January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ White, Martha C. "Is the Dreamliner Becoming a Financial Nightmare for Boeing?"TIME magazine, January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ "FAA grounding all Boeing 787s". KIRO TV. Retrieved January 16, 2013.
Jump up^ "LAN suspende de forma temporal la operación de flota Boeing 787 Dreamliner".La Tercera. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 16, 2013.
Jump up^ "DGCA directs Air India to ground all six Boeing Dreamliners on safety concerns".The Economic Times. January 17, 2013. Retrieved January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ "European safety agency to ground 787 in line with FAA". Reuters. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ "Qatar Airways grounds Boeing Dreamliner fleet". Reuters. January 17, 2013. Retrieved January 17, 2013.
^ Jump up to:a b "U.S., others ground Boeing Dreamliner indefinitely". Reuters. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ "Boeing's 787 Dreamliner". Reuters. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 16, 2013.
Jump up^ Boeing 787 Dreamliner: The impact of safety concerns. BBC News. January 17, 2013. Retrieved January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ "BBC News - Dreamliner crisis: Boeing halts 787 jet deliveries". Bbc.co.uk. January 1, 1970. Retrieved January 20, 2013.
Jump up^ "FAA approves test flights for Boeing 787". Seatle PI. Retrieved 7 February 2013.
Jump up^ "Boeing Fix for Battery Is Approved by F.A.A.". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 April 2013.
n the Boeing 787 Dreamliner's first year of service, at least four aircraft suffered from electrical system problems stemming from itslithium-ion batteries. Although teething problems are common within the first year of a new aircraft design's life, after a number of incidents including an electrical fire aboard an All Nippon Airways 787, and a similar fire found by maintenance workers on a landedJapan Airlines 787 at Boston's Logan International Airport, the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ordered a review into the design and manufacture of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, following five incidents in five days involving the aircraft, mostly involved with problems with the batteries and electrical systems. This was followed with a full grounding of the entire Boeing 787 fleet, the first such grounding since that of DC-10s in 1979.[1] It is reported that the plane has had two major battery thermal runawayevents in 52,000 flight hours, which was substantially below the 10 million flight hours predicted by Boeing, and had done so in a dangerous manner.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Timeline
2 Groundings
3 Solution
4 See also
5 References
Timeline
In December 2012, Boeing CEO James McNerney told media outlets that the problems were no greater than those experienced by the company with the introduction of other new models, such as the Boeing 777.[3] However, on January 7, 2013, a battery overheated and started a fire in an empty 787 operated by Japan Airlines (JAL) at Boston's Logan International Airport.[4][5] On January 9, United Airlinesreported a problem in one of its six 787s with the wiring in the same area as the battery fire on JAL's airliner; subsequently, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board opened a safety probe.[6]
On January 11, 2013, the FAA announced a comprehensive review of the 787's critical systems, including the design, manufacture and assembly of the aircraft. U.S. Department of Transportation secretary Ray LaHood stated the administration was "looking for the root causes" behind the recent issues. The head of the FAA, Michael Huerta, said that so far nothing found "suggests [the 787] is not safe".[7] Japan's transport ministry have also launched an investigation in response.[8]
On January 16, 2013, an All Nippon Airways (ANA) 787 made an emergency landing at Takamatsu Airport on Shikoku Island after the flight crew received a computer warning that there was smoke inside one of the electrical compartments.[9][10] ANA said that there was an error message in the cockpit citing a battery malfunction. Passengers and crew were evacuated using the emergency slides.[11]According to The Register, there are no fire-suppression systems in the electrical compartments holding batteries, only smoke detectors.[12]
US-based aviation regulators' oversight into the 2007 safety approval and FAA certification of the 787 has now come under scrutiny, as a key US Senate committee prepares for a hearing into the procedures of aviation safety certification "in coming weeks". However, an FAA spokesperson defended their 2007 safety certification of the 787 by saying, "the whole aviation system is designed so that if the worst case happens, there are systems in place to prevent that from interfering with other systems on the plane".[13]
On February 12, 2013 the Wall Street Journal reported that "Aviation safety investigators are examining whether the formation of microscopic structures known as dendrites inside the Boeing Co. 787's lithium-ion batteries played a role in twin incidents that prompted the fleet to be grounded nearly a month ago."[14]
Groundings
On January 16, 2013, both major Japanese airlines ANA and JAL announced that they were voluntarily grounding or suspending flights for their fleets of 787s after multiple incidents involving different 787s, including emergency landings. These two carriers operate 24 of the 50 Dreamliners delivered to date.[15][16] The grounding could cost ANA over $1.1 million a day.[17]
Wikinews has related news:FAA orders review of Boeing 787 Dreamliners following week of incidentsOn January 16, 2013, the FAA issued an emergency airworthiness directive ordering all U.S.-based airlines to ground their Boeing 787s until yet-to-be-determined modifications are made to the electrical system to reduce the risk of the battery overheating or catching fire.[18] This is the first time that the FAA has grounded an airliner type since 1979.[1] The FAA also announced plans to conduct an extensive review of the 787's critical systems. The focus of the review will be on the safety of the lithium-ion batteries[1] made of lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2). The 787 battery contract was signed in 2005,[19] when LiCoO2 batteries were the only type of lithium aerospace battery available, but since then newer and safer[20] types (such as LiFePO), which provide less reaction energy during thermal runaway, have become available.[21][22] FAA approved a 787 battery in 2007 with nine "special conditions".[23][24] A battery approved by FAA (through Mobile Power Solutions) was made by Rose Electronics using Kokam cells,[25] but the batteries installed in the 787 are made by Yuasa.[26]
Three All Nippon Airways 787 aircraft grounded at Tokyo on January 27, 2013On January 20, the NTSB declared that overvoltage was not the cause of the Boston incident, as voltage did not exceed the battery limit of 32 V,[27] and the charging unit passed tests. The battery had signs of short circuiting and thermal runaway.[28] Despite this, on January 24 the NTSB announced that it had not yet pinpointed the cause of the Boston fire; the FAA will not allow U.S.-based Dreamliners to fly again until the problem is found and corrected. In a press briefing that day, NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said that the NTSB had found evidence of failure of multiple safety systems designed to prevent these battery problems, and stated that fire must never happen on an airplane.[29] The Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) has said on January 23 that the battery in ANA jets in Japan reached a maximum voltage of 31 V (lower than the 32 V limit like the Boston JAL 787), but had a sudden unexplained voltage drop[30] to near zero.[31] All cells had signs of thermal damage before thermal runaway.[32] ANA and JAL had replaced several 787 batteries before the mishaps.[31] As of January 29, 2013, JTSB approved the Yuasa factory quality control[33][34] while the American NTSB continues to look for defects in the Boston battery.[35]
Industry experts disagree on consequences of the grounding: Airbus is confident that Boeing will resolve the issue[36] and that no airlines will switch plane type,[37] while other experts see the problem as "costly"[38] and "could take upwards of a year".[39]
The only U.S.-based airline that operates the Dreamliner is United Airlines, which has six.[40] Chile's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGAC) grounded LAN Airlines' three 787s.[41] The Indian Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) directed Air India to ground its six Dreamliners. The Japanese Transport Ministry made the ANA and JAL groundings official and indefinite following the FAA announcement.[42] The European Aviation Safety Agency has also followed the FAA's advice and grounded the only two European 787s operated by LOT Polish Airlines.[43] Qatar Airways has announced that they are grounding their five Dreamliners.[44] Ethiopian Air was the final operator to announce temporary groundings of its four Dreamliners.[45]
As of January 17, 2013, all 50 of the aircraft delivered to date have been grounded.[45][46][47] On January 18, Boeing announced that it was halting 787 deliveries until the battery problem is resolved.[48] On February 4, 2013, the FAA said it will permit Boeing to conduct test flights of 787 aircraft to gather additional data.[49]
Solution
The Federal Aviation Administration decided on April 19, 2013 to allow US Dreamliners return to service after changes were made to their battery systems.[50] Japanese authorities announced they were doing the same for their airplanes. The causes of the battery failures are still unknown.
See also
Aviation portalLithium Ion Batteries and Safety
Lithium Cobalt Oxide (LiCoO2)
Plug-in electric vehicle fire incidents (related to lithium-ion batteries)
UPS Airlines Flight 6, a crash caused by the thermal runaway of its lithium-ion battery cargo.
References^
Jump up to:a b c "Dreamliner: Boeing 787 planes grounded on safety fears". BBC News. Retrieved January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ "Accident: ANA B788 near Takamatsu on Jan 16th 2013, battery problem and burning smell on board". Aviation Herald. Retrieved February 8, 2013.
Jump up^ "Boeing: Problems with 787 Dreamliner "Normal"". Frequent Business Traveler. December 16, 2012. Retrieved December 16, 2012.
Jump up^ "Fire aboard empty 787 Dreamliner prompts investigation". CNN. January 8, 2013. Retrieved January 8, 2013.
Jump up^ "Second faulty Boeing Dreamliner in Boston". BBC. January 8, 2013. Retrieved January 8, 2013.
Jump up^ "U.S. Opens Dreamliner Safety Probe". The Wall Street Journal. January 9, 2013. Retrieved January 9, 2013.
Jump up^ "Boeing 787 Dreamliner to be investigated by US authorities". The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2013.
Jump up^ Mukai, Anna (January 15, 2013). "Japan to Investigate Boeing 787 Fuel Leak as FAA Reviews". Bloomberg. Retrieved January 20, 2013.
Jump up^ "全日空Ｂ７８７型機から煙 乗客避難・高松空港". NHK. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 16, 2013.
Jump up^ "Top Japan airlines ground Boeing 787s after emergency". BBC. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 16, 2013.
Jump up^ "A Boeing 787 plane makes an emergency landing in Japan". BBC. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 16, 2013.
Jump up^ Iain Thomson (25 January 2013). "Boeing 787 fleet grounded indefinitely as investigators stumped". The Register. Retrieved 8 February 2013.
Jump up^ "Boeing 787's battery woes put US approval under scrutiny". Business Standard. 2013-01-23. Retrieved 2013-02-22.
Jump up^ Ostrower, Jon (2013-02-11). "Microscopic 'Dendrites' a Focus in Boeing Dreamliner Probe - WSJ.com". Online.wsj.com. Retrieved 2013-02-22.
Jump up^ "Japanese airlines ground Boeing 787s after emergency landing". Reuters. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 16, 2013.
Jump up^ "787 emergency landing: Japan grounds entire Boeing Dreamliner fleet". The Guardian. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 16, 2013.
Jump up^ "Boeing Dreamliners grounded worldwide on battery checks". Reuters. January 17, 2013. Retrieved January 21, 2013.
Jump up^ "FAA Press Release". Federal Aviation Administration. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ "Thales selects GS Yuasa for Lithium ion battery system in Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner". GS Yuasa. Retrieved January 18, 2013.
Jump up^ Dudley, Brier (January 17, 2013). "Lithium-ion batteries pack a lot of energy — and challenges". The Seattle Times. Retrieved January 24, 2013. "iron phosphate “has been known to sort of be safer.”"
Jump up^ Dalløkken, Per Erlien (January 17, 2013). "Her er Dreamliner-problemet" (in Norwegian). Teknisk Ukeblad. Retrieved January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ "Energy storage technologies - Lithium". Securaplane. Retrieved January 24, 2013.
Jump up^ "Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787– 8 Airplane; Lithium Ion Battery Installation". FAA / Federal Register. October 11, 2007. Retrieved January 30, 2013. "NM375 Special Conditions No. 25–359–SC"
Jump up^ Alwyn Scott and Mari Saito. "FAA approval of Boeing 787 battery under scrutiny".NBC News / Reuters. Retrieved January 24, 2013.
Jump up^ Supko / Iverson (2011). "Li battery UN test report applicability". NextGov. Retrieved January 23, 2013.
Jump up^ Brewin, Bob (January 22, 2013). "A 2006 BATTERY FIRE DESTROYED BOEING 787 SUPPLIER’S FACILITY". NextGov. Retrieved January 23, 2013.
Jump up^ Nantel, Kelly (January 20, 2013). "NTSB Provides Third Investigative Update on Boeing 787 Battery Fire in Boston". NTSB. Retrieved January 21, 2013.
Jump up^ "NTSB Press Release". NTSB. January 26, 2013. Retrieved January 24, 2013.
Jump up^ Matthew Weld; Jad Mouwad (2013-01-25). "Protracted Fire Inquiry Keeping 787 on Ground". New York Times. Retrieved 2013-01-26.
Jump up^ Mitra-Thakur, Sofia (January 23, 2013). "Japan says 787 battery was not overcharged". Engineering & Technology. Retrieved January 23, 2013.
^ Jump up to:a b CHRISTOPHER DREW, HIROKO TABUCHI and JAD MOUAWAD (January 29, 2013). "Boeing 787 Battery Was a Concern Before Failure". The New York Times. Retrieved January 30, 2013.
Jump up^ Hradecky, Simon (Feb 5th 2013). "ANA B788 near Takamatsu on Jan 16th 2013, battery problem and burning smell on board". Aviation Herald. Retrieved Feb 6th 2013.
Jump up^ TABUCHI, HIROKO (January 28, 2013). "No Quality Problems Found at Battery Maker for 787". The New York Times. Retrieved January 30, 2013.
Jump up^ Chris Cooper and Kiyotaka Matsuda (January 28, 2013). "GS Yuasa Shares Surge as Japan Ends Company Inspections". BusinessWeek. Retrieved January 29, 2013.
Jump up^ Knudson, Peter (29 January 2013). "NTSB issues sixth update on JAL Boeing 787 battery fire investigation". NTSB. Retrieved 29 January 2013.
Jump up^ "Airbus CEO `Confident' Boeing Will Find Fix for 787" Bloomberg, January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ Robert Wall & Andrea Rothman (January 17, 2013). "Airbus Says A350 Design Is ‘Lower Risk’ Than Troubled 787". Bloomberg. Retrieved January 17, 2013. "“I don’t believe that anyone’s going to switch from one airplane type to another because there’s a maintenance issue,” Leahy said. “Boeing will get this sorted out.”"
Jump up^ "`Big Cost' Seen for Boeing Dreamliner Grounding" Bloomberg, January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ White, Martha C. "Is the Dreamliner Becoming a Financial Nightmare for Boeing?"TIME magazine, January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ "FAA grounding all Boeing 787s". KIRO TV. Retrieved January 16, 2013.
Jump up^ "LAN suspende de forma temporal la operación de flota Boeing 787 Dreamliner".La Tercera. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 16, 2013.
Jump up^ "DGCA directs Air India to ground all six Boeing Dreamliners on safety concerns".The Economic Times. January 17, 2013. Retrieved January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ "European safety agency to ground 787 in line with FAA". Reuters. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ "Qatar Airways grounds Boeing Dreamliner fleet". Reuters. January 17, 2013. Retrieved January 17, 2013.
^ Jump up to:a b "U.S., others ground Boeing Dreamliner indefinitely". Reuters. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ "Boeing's 787 Dreamliner". Reuters. January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 16, 2013.
Jump up^ Boeing 787 Dreamliner: The impact of safety concerns. BBC News. January 17, 2013. Retrieved January 17, 2013.
Jump up^ "BBC News - Dreamliner crisis: Boeing halts 787 jet deliveries". Bbc.co.uk. January 1, 1970. Retrieved January 20, 2013.
Jump up^ "FAA approves test flights for Boeing 787". Seatle PI. Retrieved 7 February 2013.
Jump up^ "Boeing Fix for Battery Is Approved by F.A.A.". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 April 2013.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Boeing 787 Operational problems 29-13
The Boeing 787 has been involved in multiple aviation incidents and operational problems. In December 2012, Boeing CEO James McNerney stated that the problems were no greater than those experienced with the introduction of other models such as the Boeing 777.[289][290]
Operational problems
A JAL 787 experienced a fuel leak on January 8, 2013, and its flight from Boston was canceled.[291] On January 9, United Airlines reported a problem in one of its six 787s with the wiring near the main batteries. After these incidents, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board subsequently opened a safety probe.[292] Later, on January 11, 2013, another aircraft was found to have a fuel leak.[293]
Also on January 11, 2013, the FAA announced a comprehensive review of the 787's critical systems, including the design, manufacture and assembly; U.S. Department of Transportation secretary Ray LaHood stated the administration was "looking for the root causes" behind the recent issues. The head of the FAA, Michael Huerta, said that so far nothing found "suggests [the 787] is not safe".[294]
On January 13, 2013, a Japan Airlines 787 at Narita International Airport outside Tokyo, was found to also have a fuel leak during an inspection, the third time a fuel leak had been reported within a week. The aircraft reportedly was the same one that had a fuel leak in Boston on January 8.[295] This leak was caused by a different valve; the causes of the leaks are unknown.[296] Japan's transport ministry has also launched an investigation.[297]
On July 12, 2013, a fire started on an empty Ethiopian Airlines 787 parked at Heathrow Airport before it was put out by the airport fire and rescue service. No injuries were reported.[298][299] The fire caused extensive heat damage to the aircraft.[300] The FAA and NTSB sent representatives to assist in the investigation.[301] The initial investigation found no direct link with the aircraft's main batteries.[302] Further investigations indicated that the fire was due to lithium-manganese dioxide batteries powering an emergency locator transmitter (ELT).[303][304] The UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) issued a special bulletin on July 18, 2013 requesting the US FAA ensure that the locator is removed or disconnected in Boeing 787s, and to review the safety of lithium battery-powered ELT systems in other aircraft types.[305]
On July 26, 2013, ANA said it had found wiring damage on two 787 locator beacons. United Airlines also reported that it had found a pinched wire in one 787 locator beacon.[306] On August 14, 2013, the media reported a fire extinguisher fault affecting three ANA airplanes,[307] which was caused by a supplier assembly error.[308]
On September 28, 2013, Norwegian Long Haul decided to take one of its present two 787s out of service after the two aircraft broke down on more than six occasions in September.[309] The company will lease an Airbus A340 for its long-haul operations while the 787 is returned to Boeing for repair.[310]
Battery problems
Main article: Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems
On January 16, 2013, All Nippon Airways Flight NH-692, en route from Ube to Tokyo Haneda, had a battery problem warning followed by a burning smell while climbing from Ube about 35 nautical miles west of Takamatsu, Japan. The aircraft diverted to Takamatsu and was evacuated via the slides; three passengers received minor injuries during the evacuation. Inspection revealed a battery fire. A similar incident in a parked Japan Airlines 787 at Boston's Logan International Airport within the same week led the Federal Aviation Administration to ground all Boeing 787s in service at the time.[311]
On January 16, 2013, both major Japanese airlines ANA and JAL announced that they were voluntarily grounding or suspending flights for their fleets of 787s after multiple incidents involving different 787s, including emergency landings. These two carriers operate 24 of the 50 Dreamliners delivered to date.[312][313] The grounding is reported to have cost ANA some 9 billion yen in lost sales.[314][315]
On January 16, 2013, the FAA issued an emergency airworthiness directive ordering all U.S.-based airlines to ground their Boeing 787s until yet-to-be-determined modifications were made to the electrical system to reduce the risk of the battery overheating or catching fire.[316] This was the first time that the FAA has grounded an airliner type since 1979.[317] Industry experts disagreed on consequences of the grounding: Airbus was confident that Boeing would resolve the issue[318] and that no airlines will switch plane type,[319] while other experts saw the problem as "costly"[320] and "could take upwards of a year".[321]
The FAA also announced plans to conduct an extensive review of the 787's critical systems. The focus of the review will be on the safety of the lithium-ion batteries[317] made of lithium cobalt oxide (LiCo). The 787 battery contract was signed in 2005,[193] when LiCo batteries were the only type of lithium aerospace battery available, but since then newer and safer[322] types (such as LiFePO), which provide less reaction energy during thermal runaway, have become available.[191][323] FAA approved a 787 battery in 2007 with nine "special conditions".[324][325] A battery approved by FAA (through Mobile Power Solutions) was made by Rose Electronics using Kokam cells;[326] the batteries installed in the 787 are made by Yuasa.[189]
On January 20, the NTSB declared that overvoltage was not the cause of the Boston incident, as voltage did not exceed the battery limit of 32 V,[327] and the charging unit passed tests. The battery had signs of short circuiting and thermal runaway.[328] Despite this, the NTSB announced on January 24 that it had not yet pinpointed the cause of the Boston fire; the FAA will not allow U.S.-based Dreamliners to fly again until the problem is found and corrected. In a press briefing that day, NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said that the NTSB had found evidence of failure of multiple safety systems designed to prevent these battery problems, and stated that fire must never happen on an airplane.[329]
The Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) has said on January 23 that the battery in ANA jets in Japan reached a maximum voltage of 31 V (below the 32 V limit like the Boston JAL 787), but had a sudden unexplained voltage drop[330] to near zero.[331] All cells had signs of thermal damage before thermal runaway.[332] ANA and JAL had replaced several 787 batteries before the mishaps.[331] As of January 29, 2013, JTSB approved the Yuasa factory quality control[333][334] while the NTSB continues to look for defects in the Boston battery.[335] The two major battery thermal runaway events in 100,000 flight hours was much higher than the rate of one in 10 million flight hours that Boeing predicted.[311]
The only U.S.-based airline that operated the Dreamliner at the time was United Airlines, which had six.[336] Chile's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGAC) grounded LAN Airlines' three 787s.[337] The Indian Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) directed Air India to ground its six Dreamliners. The Japanese Transport Ministry made the ANA and JAL groundings official and indefinite following the FAA announcement.[11] The European Aviation Safety Agency has also followed the FAA's advice and grounded the only two European 787s operated by LOT Polish Airlines.[338] Qatar Airways has announced that they are grounding their five Dreamliners.[339] Ethiopian Air was the final operator to announce temporary groundings of its four Dreamliners.[340] By January 17, 2013, all 50 of the aircraft delivered to date had been grounded.[340][341][342]
On January 18, Boeing announced that it was halting 787 deliveries until the battery problem is resolved.[343] On February 7, 2013, the FAA gave approval for Boeing to conduct 787 test flights to gather additional data.[344][345] In February 2013, FAA oversight into the 2007 safety approval and certification of the 787 have come under scrutiny.[346]
On March 7, 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board released an interim factual report about the 787 battery fire at Boston's Logan Airport on January 7, 2013. The investigation[347] stated that "heavy smoke and fire coming from the front of the APU battery case". Firefighters "tried fire extinguishing, but smoke and flame (flame size about 3 inches) did not stop".[348][349]
Boeing completed its final tests on a revised battery design on April 5, 2013. Qatar Airways said it expected to have its Dreamliners back in revenue service by the end of April.[350] The FAA approved Boeing's revised battery design with three additional, overlapping protection methods on April 19, 2013. The FAA published a directive on April 25 to provide instructions for retrofitting battery hardware before the 787s can return to flight.[351][352] The repairs are expected to be completed in weeks.[353]
Following the FAA approval in the United States,[354] Japan gave permission for passenger airlines to resume Boeing 787 flights in the country effective April 26, 2013.[355] On April 27, 2013, Ethiopian Airlines took a 787 on the model's first commercial flight after battery system modifications.[352][354][356]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)