Media hype about B787 test flights

The recent media hype about the test flight(s) now allowed for narrowing the cause of the two battery incidents of the Japan Air Lines and ANA B787 is quite funny in one way. On the other side, it is a little bit sad to see that so many articles are out there in the (written) press and in the Internet and that people find it important to twitter from starting the engines from landing (God thanks!) safely again - as if now every minute the aircraft could come down because every battery could fail every minute. This coverage is not just a little bit exaggerated - it's a hype. The same people could easily comment every minute that an A380 that did not get the wing fix yet is still up in the air...
The problem for Boeing is not to keep the B787 in the air during the test flights - the problem is how to come out of the dilemma: how do they want to make FAA 1000% certain that the aircraft and the battery is safe without changing the design of the battery and surroundings or changing to another battery type. At the end there are just those two options, I guess. And then there are the "How long will it take..." questions:
  • How long will that take to get the new design or a new battery?
  • How long will it take to get hardware to put it into one of the test aircraft?
  • And how long will it take to recertify the aircraft with that?
  • How long will it take to ramp up production for the new hardware?
  • How long will it take to incorporate the change into the 50 aircraft that are delivered?
  • How long will it take to change the aircraft that are now ready for delivery but are waiting for the fix?
  • How long and how many aircraft on the production line have to wait to get the new hardware?
I think that from those questions it gets immediately clear that Boeing has a serious problem in getting the B787 to customers waiting for the aircraft - it won't be just a few weeks that deliveries will restart.


  1. There's a smoldering big question behind all this, how could this happen..

    1. Expressions such as "absence of Due Diligence" or - more appropriately - "gross negligence" occur to my mind, considering the retrospective of alarm-ringing documentation that have been unveiled lately by Media, dating from 2010 or earlier, with warnings that such issues could happen ... even John Goodenough, Inventor of the Lithium-ion Cobalt Oxyde battery has warned that his battery is only 94 % safe ? With Murphy's Law in mind, corrective action should have been implemented before !

  2. The test flights had no useful results:

    NTSB: 787 battery approval should be reconsidered

    The NTSB is pretty straight forward today on this and won't be ignored now that the impression is Boeing - FAA team didn't do the job satisfactory.

    "it won't be just a few weeks that deliveries will restart"
    I guess that may be correct.