Updated January 11, 2013, 10:09 a.m. ET
By ANDY PASZTOR And JON OSTROWER
The Wall Street Journal
The
Federal Aviation Administration, increasingly concerned about safety
and reliability issues surrounding Boeing Co.'s 787 Dreamliner, said
Friday it will launch a top-priority review of the plane focusing on its
electrical system and quality controls used in the manufacturing
process.
The review will cover the 787's critical systems, including design, manufacture, and assembly.
"This
review will help us look at the root causes and do everything we can to
safeguard against similar events in the future." Transportation
Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement released at the start of a
press conference Friday that included Federal Aviation Administrator
Michael Huerta and Ray Conner, head of Boeing's commercial aircraft arm.
"We
are confident that the aircraft is safe. But we need to have a complete
understanding of what is happening," Mr. Huerta said.
In its own
statement, Boeing declared its confidence in "the design and
performance of the 787," adding that it welcomes "the opportunity to
conduct this joint review."
The unusual move by the FAA comes
after the agency has spent months monitoring various electrical problems
and other operational glitches affecting the planes, according to
people familiar with the matter, but was specifically prompted by a
battery fire on Monday aboard a Japan Airlines Co. 787 on the ground in
Boston.
Industry and government officials said the review—slated
to be headed by officials from the FAA's new-plane certification and
transport directorate offices—marks the first time in recent years that
the agency has gone back to reassess the safety of specific systems in a
jetliner already in revenue service.
Nobody was hurt in this
week's incident, but it ratcheted up pressure on the FAA to announce
steps to find the root cause of the blaze and determine common factors
that may have affected earlier problems stemming from improperly
assembled wiring and other electrical issues.
The FAA's lead spokeswoman late Thursday declined to comment.
A
Boeing spokesman declined to comment on "the nature and content" of the
company's communications with regulators, but said "we are working with
the FAA and our customers to ensure we thoroughly understand" issues
pertaining to introduction of the plane into widespread service.
Spokesman Marc Birtel added, "we are absolutely confident in the
reliability and performance of the 787."
The review won't ground
planes or halt production, but the FAA has broad latitude to take action
as a result of any findings. That could range from ordering new
production procedures to revising designs of some electric components,
which potentially could prompt further production delays and additional
costs for Boeing.
In addition to reviewing technical and safety
questions related to the design of the 787's groundbreaking electrical
system, the FAA also will delve into manufacturing issues such as how
well subcontractors are integrated into Boeing's overall production
system, according to one person familiar with the details.
The
decision to launch the review is bound to stoke concerns on Wall Street
about potential negative fallout to Boeing's reputation and stock price.
But the move also carries some political risks for Michael Huerta, the
recently confirmed chief of the FAA, who now must oversee a high-profile
review that could reopen some safety and manufacturing issues the
agency was supposed to put to bed before it certified the Dreamliner in
late 2011.
U.S. aviation regulators raised questions about the
reliability of the Dreamliner during long transocean flights months
before the advanced new jet suffered a spate of electrical and other
problems this week, according to people familiar with the matter.
The
ability of the Dreamliner to fly long routes, such as the 7,400-mile
trek between Houston and Auckland, New Zealand, was touted as one of the
plane's game-changing characteristics by Boeing and airline customers
alike, with the jet's lightweight body and fuel-efficient engines
linking cities out of the range of similarly sized aircraft.
Reaching
that ambitious goal quickly now will be a challenge, according to
government and industry officials, limiting the routes available to
airlines just as Boeing boosts production to satisfy carriers that have
waited years for their Dreamliners after a succession of delays.
Electrical
issues, leaking fuel lines and a series of other malfunctions have
caused a string of operational problems and emergency landings
stretching back several months.
Regulators and airlines around
the world, including the eight who fly the 787 today, will look to the
FAA for guidance because the plane is built in the U.S. and the agency
leads the certification of the new jet.
From its inception, the
787's advanced design, featuring weight-saving carbon-fiber composite
materials and two fuel-efficient engines, was intended to make it
suitable to fly practically any global route—crossing long stretches of
ocean or spanning remote polar regions.
Chicago-based Boeing, by
the middle of the past decade, had hoped that soon after introduction
into service, safety regulators would allow 787s to fly up to 330
minutes, or 5½ hours, from the nearest emergency-landing strip.
When
the first Dreamliner began carrying passengers in October 2011, 3½
years behind schedule, the FAA and overseas regulators permitted the
jets to fly no longer than 180 minutes, or three hours, from any
suitable airport. At the time, Boeing said it expected to extend that to
330 minutes by early 2012, citing work under way to modify some
fuel-gauge software.
But FAA experts have been monitoring a
variety of reliability issues that arose in the past few months and
attracted attention inside and outside the agency, prompting FAA
officials to adopt a go-slow approach in extending the three-hour
restriction, according to people familiar with the matter.
The
FAA's concerns, these people said, moved beyond the fuel-system-related
software to include a range of power-supply issues along with questions
about quality controls during Boeing's manufacturing process.
For
now, Dreamliners remain under the 180-minute rule, a substantially
tighter restriction than the FAA imposes on the Boeing 777, the 787's
larger twin-engine sibling, which started flying in 1995 and is now
offered with 330-minute certification only as of late-2011.The lead-up
to the 787's original approval suggested both Boeing and the FAA
believed the same factors would play out. Both Rolls-Royce and General
Electric Co. engines offered on the Dreamliner were granted approved for
330-minute extended operations ahead of their first deliveries to their
respective launch customers, All Nippon Airways Co. and Japan Airlines.
During initial testing and certification, Boeing flew the 787 for 345
minutes on one engine, and five of six power generators disconnected,
according to Mr. Sinnett.
That rules out airlines flying the 787
between, for example, Dallas and Sydney—a route Qantas Airways Ltd. now
flies with the larger four-engine 747.
Continental Airlines, now
part of United Continental Holdings Inc. and the U.S. launch customer
for the 787, highlighted its hopes for the jet by naming
Houston-Auckland as the first route for the plane. That plan has since
been shelved for other reasons, but United has identified routes from
the U.S. to Australia as another target market for its 787s, six of
which are now flying.
A United spokeswoman said the airline
doesn't comment on future route plans but said that it "looks forward to
more opportunities to where we could fly" with the Dreamliner.
Mike
Sinnett, a Boeing vice president and the 787's chief engineer, said
Wednesday in a conference call the FAA wanted to take into account the
early performance of the Dreamliner.
He called getting the 787
certified to be flown beyond 180 minutes "a procedural question." and
said discussions with the FAA center on determining how early teething
troubles are factored into the Dreamliner's certification to fly
extended missions.
When the 777 was certified by the FAA years
ago for extended overwater routes, the reliability of its engines was
the primary consideration. The frequency of in-flight shutdowns was
painstakingly tracked for each engine manufacturer, and those results
largely determined when and which additional routes the planes would be
permitted to fly.
But now, it turns out that some of the biggest
concerns about the 787's reliability center on its redundant electrical
grids, as well as the ability of batteries to power key onboard systems
in case of an emergency requiring a lengthy diversion to a backup
airport.
Rival plane maker Airbus, a unit of European Aeronautic
Defence & Space Co. also hopes to be able to fly long routes far
from suitable diversion airports. The European plane maker is developing
its A350 XWB jet, itself delayed until 2014 after design issues, which
aims to be able to operate as far as 350 minutes from emergency fields.
Achieving
beyond-180-minute certification is also key for Boeing's next act: the
larger 787-9, slated to be delivered in 2014 to launch customer Air New
Zealand Ltd.
The Auckland-based carrier had already flagged that
it wanted to fly ultralong, overwater routes by pushing Boeing to
certify the 777 to the full 330 minutes, allowing it to fly to parts of
Africa and South America that that were previously impossible with a
two-engine aircraft.
Air New Zealand spokeswoman Kelly Kilgour
said, "It is simply too early for us to comment on the performance
capability of the" Dreamliner.
On Friday, Japan's All Nippon
Airways reported two new cases of problems with the aircraft. ANA
spokeswoman Ayumi Kunimatsu said a small amount of oil was discovered
leaking from the left engine of a 787 flight from southern Japan's
Miyazaki airport to Tokyo.
The jet returned to Miyazaki, but
after checks found no safety risk it flew to Tokyo. ANA said on another
flight, to Matsuyama on the island of Shikoku, glass in a cockpit window
cracked and the aircraft was grounded for repairs.
—Jack Nicas and the Associated Press contributed to this article.
Source: http://online.wsj.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment