NTSB criticizes Boeing’s statements on 787 fire

Good evening / morning.

Thanks, Aaron..
---------------
•-- “Boeing was out of bounds when it provided conclusions about the Japan Airlines 787 fire during a recent press briefing in Tokyo, the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has charged”.
-------------------

No matter what “emotional feelings” we may have for Boeing in their plight, NTSB are right, unequivocally right.
--------------------
•-- “In a letter sent this week to Boeing, NTSB general counsel David Tochen said the March 15 briefing was in noncompliance with Boeing’s responsibilities as a party to an ongoing NTSB investigation. He said Boeing had signed “NTSB’s Certification of Party Representative” document when NTSB began investigating the Jan. 7 Japan Airlines 787 lithium ion battery fire in Boston—one of two battery failure events that led to the Jan. 16 worldwide grounding of the Dreamliner fleet—and should be aware of its responsibilities.”
-----------------

Yes. It is a sort of “sub iudice” situation. Communication possibilities and rights are restricted Of course, on this site, we have seen some cases of non-observance of the principles involved here. Well, there are trash merchants all around. We just don’t have to go slither down to their gutter-press level.
------------------

•-- ‘The March 15 Tokyo briefing, during which Boeing officials detailed the company’s comprehensive fix for the 787’s battery system, appears to have bothered NTSB officials for two reasons. Tochen reprimanded Boeing for “its failure to inform the NTSB of the content of the recent technical briefing in Tokyo prior to its occurrence,” which, he said, was “inconsistent with our expectations for a party” to an ongoing incident investigation.’
------------------

NTSB position is spot on.
--------------------------
•-- 'In addition, according to an emailed statement from NTSB spokesperson Peter Knudson, “Boeing representatives provided their own analysis and conclusions regarding an ongoing NTSB investigation,” when such analysis is supposed to be left to NTSB officials.

-----------------
Absolutely. There are rules. Boeing should be made to stick by them !
What is this pantomime ?

------------------

•-- NTSB has not reached a conclusion about the root cause of the 787 fire, which it said started when short-circuiting occurred in a cell of the lithium ion battery that starts the aircraft’s auxiliary power unit. But NTSB chairman Deborah Hersman has said multiple times that this led to “thermal runaway”—uncontrolled chemical reactions resulting from overheating—which “cascaded to the other cells and that resulted in the fire.”
•-- However, according to slides from the March 15 briefing provided by Boeing, VP and 787 chief project engineer Mike Sinnett said, “The only possible cause for thermal runaway at an airplane level is overcharging … Following detailed review no evidence of overcharging was found in either” the Boston incident or the Jan. 16 All Nippon Airways battery overheating event that led to an emergency landing.

•--- NTSB and the Japan Transport Safety Board both have said there was no overcharging in either event, but NTSB has been adamant that thermal runaway nevertheless did occur in the Boston incident, putting Sinnett at odds with the board.

--------------------
Quite right, too ! Who gives a "tinker’s cuss" about SINNETT’s opinion ? He is NOT the Official Investigation Authority !

This is self-assessment gone mad ! every word SINNETT has said should simply be disregarded. NTSB should issue a statement to this effect. This guy is setting himself up as Judge & Jury ! That is ridiculous ! Who does he rhink he is ?

Who does Jim McNERNEY think SINNETT is ?

Is this rubbish manner the norm ? My eye !

-------------------

• --- Boeing acknowledged receiving the NTSB letter, saying in a statement, “We remain fully committed to support the NTSB and other regulatory authorities in their investigations into the cause of the 787 battery incidents, and also continue our around-the-clock efforts to return the 787 fleet to service.”

--------------------
Boeing’s task is to work, with head down and mouth shut !

Here we go again !

The cacophony continues. NTSB can begin to feel a warm glow, within & without, as they receive a sort of support from Japan's Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB)

Japan's CAB said on Friday that preparations are not yet complete for any test flight of Boeing's grounded B787 this week.

See several aviation publications, writing their own pieces, or mentioning other sources ( e. g. REUTERS), and quoting persons close to the dossier, such as Shigeru Takano, a senior safety official at Japan’s Civil Aviation Bureau (CAB).

•--- "It's Thursday (in the United States) and nothing has been set ; there are a number of steps ... needed ..... before a test flight," he told a news briefing.
•--- "Boeing... has predicted the 787 could return to operation within weeks."
----------------------

Really . Is that so ? Or might one sing, “It ain’t necessarily so” ?
----------------------

Interestingly, we now read that : "Japan's aviation regulator last week criticised, as inappropriate, remarks made by Boeing executives at a March 15 (2013) press briefing in Tokyo, who said that the cause of the battery fault may never be found”.
-----------------------

NTSB will begin to like that support, and convergent thinking from their Japanes counterparts !
------------------------

We learn, too, from several foreign (non–American) sources, that :
•--- “CAB also said it was too early to estimate that the 787 would return to operation within weeks.”

Is Boeing’s overflowing optimism (fully comprehensible from Boeing’s standpoint ; let’s be fair on that ! ) beginning to be tempered, by "outside eyes" ?
-------------------------

•--- “The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in the US said Boeing did not inform investigators of what it planned to say about the 787 during last week's briefing in Tokyo, Bloomberg reported on Thursday.”

•--- ‘Boeing's position was "inconsistent with our expectations" from a company involved in an accident probe, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) general counsel David Tochen wrote in a letter, according to Bloomberg’.
---------------------
We have seen that (as evidenced in one of the posts above).
-------------------------
•--- "We have received the correspondence, and remain fully committed to support the NTSB and other regulatory authorities in their investigations into the cause of the 787 battery incidents, and also continue our around-the-clock efforts to return the 787 fleet to service," Boeing spokesman Marc Birtel said.
---------------------------
Yes, ... fine words from Boeing ! But the leaning, here, must be towards the “official Institutions & Authorities”.
Are Boeing’s “Leaders” too dumb to see that the time for their talking is NOT NOW ?

We want to see their B787’s back up in the air, flying through valid programmes, really capable of re-building public confidence in this B787 programme , the success of which the whole aviation scene needs !

And that begins, now, by respecting, to the letter, and in the spirit, the rule & procedures of ths situation, which, in effect, are binding & do have quasi force of law ! All attempts to circumvent these are counterproductive, and simply serve to undermine Boeing’s case !

Cannot someone make them see that ?

NTSB may be right; but that will be a matter for the legal professionals to interpret. I guess the truth lies somewhere in between. Having had the clearance to test its solution and possibly apply it later, Boeing may have just intended to brief a sceptical audience, and therefore seen the need to make its argument robust.

Changes in fleet composition are always more complicated than the PR people one sees peddling views. It could very well be a result of the collapse of business that one aircraft type ceases to be ideal; look at BA and the B777X.

It is therefore disingenuous to assume all this can be explained by the postulations of a few vocal airlines.

From the NTSB website:
"The NTSB, which has no authority to regulate, fund, or be directly involved in the operation of any mode of transportation, conducts investigations and makes recommendations from an objective viewpoint.
To date, the NTSB has issued over 13,000 safety recommendations to more than 2,500 recipients. Because the NTSB has no formal authority to regulate the transportation industry, our effectiveness depends on our reputation for conducting thorough, accurate, and independent investigations and for producing timely, well-considered recommendations to enhance transportation safety."
As a forty year US airline crew member, from Connies to747's , I found myself hoping that the NTSB would get an enforcement function.
The present 787 boondoggle is not when I'd like to see that function acquired by the NTSB. The current toxic political atmosphere in DC makes one suspect of the FAA, DOT, and NTSB and of course the media. I do feel that had this occurred at another time, the 787 would be currently flying in revenue service, with possibly some restrictions.

Sorry, I "mis-posted" and am transferring to the correct destination. My mistake.

Apologies for the inconvenience ! .

Boeing management insists in the wrong direction. Are they paid by french or chinese competitors? They are doing a big favour to Airbus, Bombardier , etc..and simply don't care about passengers, pilots and american industry.
How they can think not to care about NTSB too?

This may not be the right place for a topic on the aspect of Clients' worries and possible impatience. ATWOnline Administrators will know best on that matter.

But it is relevant to mention NOW the aspect of the risk of DEFECTION from Boeing to Airbus. After all, the point has been evoked under this Topic Heading (see extract from my post above :
---------------
-- "But, for commercial operations, the risk is that the aircraft remain grounded for a substantial time !

"And that is where the anger of the NTSB could lead. No leniency for Boeing !

"That is the fear. And the longer the aircraft stay grounded, the greater the risk of (i) claims for more "cash-now" compensation, and (ii) order cancellations, and even defection to Airbus ! )"
-----------------
Now read this extract from a REUTERS article (there may be other articles ; I have not gone browsing) :
-----------------
"Japan Airlines may buy 20 Airbus A350 jets"
----

•---"Japan Airlines Co may buy about 20 A350 jets from Airbus for around 400 billion yen ($4.23 billion), the Nikkei daily reported on Sunday, a move that would reduce its reliance on Boeing."

•--- "The Japanese carrier is considering using A350-1000 jets on flights to Europe and the United States to replace its Boeing 777 jets, and is set to make a final decision on the purchase by around June (2013), the newspaper said, without citing sources.

•---"Japan Airlines and Airbus could not be immediately reached for comment.
•--- "The deal for the 350-seater planes would be the first with the European aircraft maker and includes a simulation facility for pilot training.

•--- "Japan Airlines is set to retire its lone McDonnell Douglas MD-90 jet after a final flight on March 30, leaving it with a fleet of more than 100 aircraft, all manufactured by Boeing, the report said.

•--- "The carrier's seven Boeing 787 Dreamliner jets have been grounded since mid-January after problems with its lithium-ion battery."
------------------

One would think that JAL will be loyal, and, as the Company has said, stay with Boeing & the current B787 orders. That is the Japanese style, even if they do go on to seek monetary compensation, as is possible, indeed likely, ... even if, quite rightly, JAL are not going to heap more burden on Boeing's shoulders at this time.

But, going forward, there are separate issues. The A350-XWB-1000 is a distinct possibility. The JAL interest in this particular variant of the A350-XWB family was mentioned a year or two ago, even before the upgrade package now decided by Airbus.

It will be interesting to see how this "possible dossier" evolves.

One tends to be ultra-wary of the French media, notably the press, in its writings on Boeing.

However, various French newspapers have latched onto this story of JAL’s potential acquisition of 20 or so A350-XWB-1000 aircraft.

On this occasion, one sees no gloating.

French newspapers are simply leaning on some more details, apparently provided in the NIKKEI daily.

They say that, despite JAL's (& ANA's) keeping the B787 battery issue separate, as a stand-alone dossier, the whole incident has served to highlight the danger in putting all one’s eggs in the Boeing basket.

For Jal, it seems that now is the time to "go mixed fleet”, and diversify the supply-source, to reduce the risk of dependency on Boeing.

This thinking may well spread fairly fast, especially if the NTSB applies powerful pressure through its recommendations, notably on the FAA, to ensure that this Agency does not cow-tow to Boeing.

There may be cause to fear an extended, rather than a shorter period of grounding, before B787’s return to commercial flight operations.

If such is the, there could be a hardening of the risk of defections from Boeing to Airbus, even if not immediately, but in a more drawn-out time frame.

Japan may begin to shift its traditional ground, in its trade relations with USA & Boeing.

I am sure Boeing will be working on a Plan B with a Ni-Cad battery in one remote corner of a hanger in Seattle. They can see the writing on the wall, as more airline orders could go to the other side of the pond. Even if they have to fit two Ni-Cad batteries to replace one LI battery, and modify the electrical equipment, it will be a good solution. They still have the time to do that for the -9 and -10, I think.
Airlines are mortally scared of technical issues that scare passengers. I know for sure, as I come from an airline, even if 10% of the passengers switch to your competitor, it is a disaster for the airline. Historically a good majority of passengers who switch never come back to you. The passengers who cross over are normally higher paying ones from the front end of the aircraft, who naturally contribute to the profit. That is a reality for all airlines and it hurts. When DC10 had a few major issues, a highly reputed airline like Swiss Air, the then first choice for many, realized that. Many of it's high value customers got a bit jittery and decided to walk across to the competitor.
I am sure Boeing is well aware of these points, as they are highly experienced in this field to act ignorant of these facts.

Thanks, TechGuru.

I think you may be right. In this sort of Company (Boeing), there are always some real, "loyalty-down" guys who say that they are willing to run a "parallel plan", ... discreetly.

And there are nearly always groups of perspicacious top managers, who know how, and are willing to support quietly such discreet, positive back-up action.

If "push comes to shove", they then have a fall-back position into which they can step, and bring it forward in pretty good shape !

In this way, these massive public declarations of confidence may just be "for the birds" !

The serious stuff may well be going on behind the scenes, in a way which will make it a true "relief-provider" & "confidence-booster", at the right moment, when necessary.

We just have to "wait & see" !

No, Frank B.
No-one forced you to read.

Contribute, then.

Feel free to maintain your position.

You are just another opinion merchant. You say : "no one can contribute without a rebuttal from you."

That's your personal opinion. You are entitled to it. No-one can be uncomfortable with that as an opinion.

But you state it as a fact. That is false. Utterly.
That is what I kick at. And, when I quote, it is simply to back up the facts. I do not choose to hide the facts that go against my point. And that bugs you.

You prefer to make unfounded assertions, and have no one contest them. Now, that is just great dialogue ! Your definition !

I could not care if we disagree. That's great ; agreeing politely to disagree.... on opinions Attempting to run against established, limpid fact, and resorting to insult, when such attempts at fail, is unconstructive and impolite.

But I don't want to bore you.

Try contibuting.