Boeing 787 probe shifts to monitoring system maker
TOKYO (AP) - The joint U.S. and Japanese investigation into the Boeing 787's battery problems has shifted from the battery-maker to the manufacturer of a monitoring system.
Japan transport ministry official Shigeru Takano said Monday the probe into battery-maker GS Yuasa was over for now as no evidence was found it was the source of the problems.
Ministry officials said they will inspect Kanto Aircraft Instrument Co. on Monday as part of the ongoing investigation. It makes a system that monitors voltage, charging and temperature of the lithium-ion batteries.
All 50 of the Boeing 787s in use around the world are grounded after one of the jets operated by All Nippon Airways made an emergency landing in Japan earlier this month when its main battery overheated. Earlier in January, a battery in a Japan Airlines 787 caught fire while parked at Boston's Logan International Airport.
GS Yuasa shares jumped on the news it is no longer being investigated, gaining nearly 5 percent in Tokyo trading. The issue had plunged 12 percent after the battery problems surfaced in Japan.
Ministry officials stopped short of saying that Kanto's monitoring system was under any special scrutiny, saying it was part of an ongoing investigation.
"We are looking into affiliated parts makers," Takano said. "We are looking into possibilities."
Kyoto-based GS Yuasa declined to comment, noting that the investigation was still underway.
Hideaki Kobayashi, spokesman for Kanto Aircraft, based in Fujisawa, southwest of Tokyo, declined comment. He said it was too early to tell whether its system was behind the problems.
Last week, U.S. federal investigators said the JAL battery that caught fire showed evidence of short-circuiting and a chemical reaction known as "thermal runaway," in which an increase in temperature causes progressively hotter temperatures. It's not clear to investigators which came first, the short-circuiting or the thermal runaway.
Deliveries of the jet dubbed the Dreamliner were three years behind schedule because of manufacturing delays. Much of the aircraft is made by outside manufacturers, many of them major Japanese companies who make about 35 percent of the plane.
It is the first jet to make wide use of lithium-ion batteries, the kind usually found in laptops and other gadgets. They are prone to overheating and require additional systems to avoid fires.
Investigators have been looking at the remnants of the ANA flight's charred battery, but it is unclear whether the battery or a related part was behind its overheating. Investigators have said the ANA battery and the JAL battery did not receive excess voltage.
Japanese carrier All Nippon Airways was the "launch customer" for the 787, and has been forced to cancel services - 643 domestic flights through Feb. 12, affecting 69,000 passengers, and 195 international flights through Feb. 18, affecting 13,620 passengers.
Japan Airlines, which has fewer 787s than ANA, has deployed other aircraft in its fleet, minimizing its flight cancellations.
Boeing, which competes against Airbus of France, has halted 787 deliveries. Boeing has orders for more than 800 of the Dreamliner planes.
The 787 is the first airliner made mostly from lightweight composite materials that boost fuel efficiency. It also relies on electronic systems rather than hydraulic or mechanical systems to a greater degree than any other airliner.
Analysts say customers won't come back to the 787 unless its safety is solidly assured.
Japan transport ministry official Shigeru Takano said Monday the probe into battery-maker GS Yuasa was over for now as no evidence was found it was the source of the problems.
Ministry officials said they will inspect Kanto Aircraft Instrument Co. on Monday as part of the ongoing investigation. It makes a system that monitors voltage, charging and temperature of the lithium-ion batteries.
All 50 of the Boeing 787s in use around the world are grounded after one of the jets operated by All Nippon Airways made an emergency landing in Japan earlier this month when its main battery overheated. Earlier in January, a battery in a Japan Airlines 787 caught fire while parked at Boston's Logan International Airport.
GS Yuasa shares jumped on the news it is no longer being investigated, gaining nearly 5 percent in Tokyo trading. The issue had plunged 12 percent after the battery problems surfaced in Japan.
Ministry officials stopped short of saying that Kanto's monitoring system was under any special scrutiny, saying it was part of an ongoing investigation.
"We are looking into affiliated parts makers," Takano said. "We are looking into possibilities."
Kyoto-based GS Yuasa declined to comment, noting that the investigation was still underway.
Hideaki Kobayashi, spokesman for Kanto Aircraft, based in Fujisawa, southwest of Tokyo, declined comment. He said it was too early to tell whether its system was behind the problems.
Last week, U.S. federal investigators said the JAL battery that caught fire showed evidence of short-circuiting and a chemical reaction known as "thermal runaway," in which an increase in temperature causes progressively hotter temperatures. It's not clear to investigators which came first, the short-circuiting or the thermal runaway.
Deliveries of the jet dubbed the Dreamliner were three years behind schedule because of manufacturing delays. Much of the aircraft is made by outside manufacturers, many of them major Japanese companies who make about 35 percent of the plane.
It is the first jet to make wide use of lithium-ion batteries, the kind usually found in laptops and other gadgets. They are prone to overheating and require additional systems to avoid fires.
Investigators have been looking at the remnants of the ANA flight's charred battery, but it is unclear whether the battery or a related part was behind its overheating. Investigators have said the ANA battery and the JAL battery did not receive excess voltage.
Japanese carrier All Nippon Airways was the "launch customer" for the 787, and has been forced to cancel services - 643 domestic flights through Feb. 12, affecting 69,000 passengers, and 195 international flights through Feb. 18, affecting 13,620 passengers.
Japan Airlines, which has fewer 787s than ANA, has deployed other aircraft in its fleet, minimizing its flight cancellations.
Boeing, which competes against Airbus of France, has halted 787 deliveries. Boeing has orders for more than 800 of the Dreamliner planes.
The 787 is the first airliner made mostly from lightweight composite materials that boost fuel efficiency. It also relies on electronic systems rather than hydraulic or mechanical systems to a greater degree than any other airliner.
Analysts say customers won't come back to the 787 unless its safety is solidly assured.
Aircraft have been flying with Ni-Cad batteries for over 50 years. They have proven reliability, although the power to weight ratio may favor newer technologies. To add Ni-Cad batteries to the certification should not take much time. In fact, the process should have already been well along. Boeing, you have let your customers down big time. You need to get those planes back in the air. If you keep messing around, trying to point fingers, your friends will be forced to change to Airbus. You should already have retrofit electronic assemblies coming off some assembly line somewhere. You should have test installations in the air being certified. You can point fingers later. You likely need to replace your head of Operations and Engineering. The board should consider replacing the President as well. Your whole future as a major world aircraft supplier is on the line. Get those damn planes back in the air, and worry about blame later. The damage you have done is serious, donât make it terminal.   The second these planes were grounded over this technology a retrofit program should have been started. Even if it went no where because the problem wound up fixed, that cost would be nothing compared to what this is costing in public relations and customer loyalty. As it stands, the problem is not fixed. If you are not already certifying this aircraft with the older power, heads should roll from the top down.    Â
Where does it say Boeing is pointing fingers??????
@oldster70: You are quite right in that this is a very serious problem. One that either needs the problem repaired or a replacement/retro-fit package issued. However, I must take exception with your implication that somehow the airlines nor the FAA was fully aware of what they were getting. That is pure bunk. I firmly believe that everyone, from the airlines, to Boeing, to the suppliers, to the Japanese and US safety boards want and need to find an answer. And find it they will. Boeing thought they had a fool proof system for the batteries. Obviously not, but just as obvious is the fact that so far there is no "smoking gun" to point at. This just exemplifies how complex this situtation really is.
Boeing will get this problem fixed just matter of time now.
Still,I will not fly Airbus,they either land on tree top or oceans !
 @scychan Well, I could say that your Boeings like to crash into each other on tropical islands, lose rudders, lose dorsal skin, have a ton of pilot errors, fly into Central American cliffs, somersault into bodies of water, land with their gear up, lose an engine, lose two engines, crash into buildings by terrorists, lose a tire, run off of runways (aka land in the grass), spontaneously catch fire while parked, get cracked windshields, leak hydraulic fluid, suffer decompression, cause pilots to pass out, have more irate passengers onboard...
Â
All aircraft have their teething problems like the 787. I prefer Airbus for a number of reasons. You prefer Boeing for a number of reasons. 98% of the traveling public doesn't know the difference.
Â
Let me ask you this: Would you rather own & drive a Chevrolet Cavalier or a BMW 3 series? Do you like Red or Purple? Regular coke or diet? We all have our preferences and opinions. Personally, I prefer a stick to a yoke. I hear you like your "yoke" on the runny side...
I find it funny that everyone is blaming the battery issue on "outsourcing". This is not an outsourcing issue. Boeing does not build batteries. No different that engines.Â
Good job, Boeing! Meanwhile, expect your 787 orders to get cancelled while they get converted into A350 orders for those airlines looking for a composite plane design...
Â
I'm sorry, but I called it the "LateLiner" for a reason, and now I shall call it the "LemonLiner".
Â
Change your bumper stickers to "If it's Boeing, I ain't going!"
Â
(It's also funny how the anti-Airbus crowd is quick to insult Boeing's 787 flaws here on this site, but whenever Airbus has good news, they try to say how great Boeing is. Love the bandwagon...)
Â
(Betcha wonder why AA is ordering AIRBUS now to replace their MD-80s, eh?)
Â
I knew this outsourcing was gonna bite them in the bum. Looks like I was right. Pardon me, but I'm gonna have my cake AND eat it, too. Right after I book my next flight on an A330...
@Donkey Kong: You have a severe case of selective memory. AA also order a bunch of 737's. Both the classic and the Max. And puleeze! Comparing the A330 with an out of production 777-200 model. You can do better than that, especially if you intend to do more that play a troll. I just pulled these from Boeing's and Airbus's websites. A-330-200: 253 passengers, 7250 nm range. A-330-300: 295 passengers, 5850 nm range. B777-200ER: 301 passengers, 7725 nm range. B777-300: 368 passengers, 6005 range.
 @usnrbb  @Donkey 330-200 still beats the 777-300. 777-200ER's range can be reduced by weight and cruise speeds, however the only one that can beat the range of an A330-200 would be a 777-200LR. But, why sit 3-3-3 in coach when you can sit 2-4-2 or at times, 2-3-2 towards the back? I've been on both aircraft a number of times, mostly on trans-pacific flights. I'm sorry, but I'll take the A330 any day over a 777. I'll also take an A330 over a LateLiner. Gonna have to requote myself:
Â
"It's also funny how the anti-Airbus crowd is quick to insult Boeing's 787 flaws here on this site, but whenever Airbus has good news, they try to say how great Boeing is. Love the bandwagon..."
 @Donkey Kong  @usnrbb You obviously don't know that seat arrangement is selected by the airline.Â
Â
You make yourself sound like a pilot, yet how many hours do you have? Flight Simulator doesn't count!
 @Donkey Kong MD-80's are out dated and old. Similar to your hate. What's wrong, did Boeing turn you down for a job and now you flip burgers at McDonald's? I will fly Boeing any day of the week over a flying canoe called Airbus. Check you facts, Boeing outsold and out delivered Airbus last year as well.Â
 @Thomas Bagby I believe I said it best previously: "(It's also funny how the anti-Airbus crowd is quick to insult Boeing's 787 flaws here on this site, but whenever Airbus has good news, they try to say how great Boeing is. Love the bandwagon...)"
 @Donkey Kong yah right!  Where do you get your information? Your full of it
 @hello Range information varies, depending on takeoff weights/passenger loads and cruise speed & altitudes.
 @Donkey Kong and your own angle of vision
@Donkey Kong Well, the A350 will have Li-Ion batteries as well. And have fun on the A330, talk about a piece O' junk.
Â
 @jkdrummer  @Donkey Sorry, but my A330, at 6400 nm of range can fly farther than your 777-200 (5960 nm and in most cases, LESS).
Â
Love your Talosian, by the way. Must be nice to see everything around you as an illusion. ;)
 @Donkey Kong The 777 is still in production....In case you hadn't noticed!
Â
 @Too funny!  @jkdrummer Ok, let's talk about the A330, which is still in production today.
 @Donkey Kong  @jkdrummer What A330 are you talking about? Oh, 777-200 that one derivative that hasn't been in production since 2007. Lets talk about jets that are in production today! How about we talk about the A330 crashes!!!
This is what usually happens when major segments of the manufacturing of such complex machine are farmed out or outsources to nearly unsupervised often overseas manufacturers in hopes to save money.  Want the job done correctly, do the whole of it in house here in the USA. In the long run such outsourcing seldom works, and Boeing in its greed is learning the lesson the hard way.  Kind of like putting together a puzzle with pieces made in several different countries and hoping they all fit. Well, Boeing, good luck on your Dream becoming a Nightmare Liner.
 @growlerxrunner after teething pains it will still be the best aircraft ever built.Â
Is Boeing becoming the Fiat of the airline industry, fix it again Tony.....
Boeing better have a viable battery/battery charger replacement plan in work, this could go on for a very long time and their financial liability is incredible. Falling back to Nickel Cadmium technology is a tremendous weight penalty, but loss of 4 passenger capability is much better than grounded.Â
 @al_wa Your solution is so simple and effective that it is a wonder that it is not being implemented as we speak. Substituting a more reliable battery system until the lithium-ion problem is resolved would get these expensive airplanes back into service.
 @Glassman  @al_wa How much of a weight difference in the types of batteries are we talking about....?
BTW, you'd have to change out all of the batteries to be the same. Cant mix Lipo and NMh on the same system.
Could be several hundred lbs.
Â
 @Glassman  @al_wa If it was as simple as swapping out batteries they would have done that already. Unfortunately is is not that simple. The battery would need to be tested and certified which takes time, even for a battery that is currently used on other planes. To add to the issue, the 787 uses a battery that is 32 volts vs. 28 volts for batteries on other planes.Â
 @Glassman  @al_wa It is assumed to take six to nine months to replace the battery system, not to mention the weight loss from the heavier, older system. That weight loss would turn into revenue loss for airlines and additional penalties for Boeing. I am sure BOE is working hard on that possibility, but would rather be able to keep the lithium-ion battery.
 @Glassman  @al_wa It could be on its way, but reports are saying that the re-engineering could take up to a year before it's the viable alternative.  They must certify it, and then deploy the new batteries with coordination with all of the maintenance crews to be able to service and detect issues.  I think they are actually considering falling back to Nickel Metal Hydride.