FAA, Boeing defend 787 battery inspections

{mosads}Boeing’s Chief 787 Engineer Mike Sinnett agreed, telling lawmakers that
the inspection of the airplane’s battery “advanced the state of the art
for testing of lithium-ion battery.”

The 787 was grounded for three months as the FAA investigated a series of battery failures that resulted in at least one electrical fire. Other countries followed suit, creating a worldwide stoppage for the plane.

Regulators cleared the plane for service in April after Boeing made a series of redesigns to the batteries.

Lawmakers pressed Gilligan on whether she was completely confident there would not be a recurrence of the battery issues.

“Would you feel comfortable flying on a 787?” Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas) asked Gilligan.

“Yes sir,” she replied quickly, later adding the caveat, “These are complicated pieces of equipment. Things can go wrong.”

Lawmakers acknowledged the changes that were made by Boeing to the 787’s battery, but several said the grounding of the airplane raised questions about its initial certification.

“In April, the Government Accountability Office raised concerns before the Senate Commerce Committee that ‘FAA staff have not been able to keep pace with industry changes and, thus, may struggle to understand the aircraft or equipment they are tasked with certificating,'” Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) said. “The NTSB’s [National Transportation Safety Board] independent investigation of the January 7 Japan Airlines 787 incident is exploring this key issue, and should be completed later this year.

“The FAA is conducting its own review of the Boeing 787’s certification process,” Larsen continued. “Looking forward, Congress must ensure that the FAA is adequately staffed and that the agency is positioned to understand and challenge assumptions put forward by manufacturers regarding new technologies.”

Republicans cut Boeing a little more slack for the early problems of the plane.

“New aircraft with new use of technology can experience issues, and it’s important that they be addressed early,” House Transportation Committee Chairman Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) said. “However, this does not mean that these aircraft are unsafe.”

Shuster said the grounding of the 787 was a “valuable learning opportunity.”

Sinnett told the committee that Boeing was “over-conservative” in testing 787 batteries to replicate the failures that led to the plane’s three-month grounding.

“We added a lot to the battery to make it do what it does,” Sinnett said, adding that the battery was used more in testing that it would be normal flight.

Sinnett and Gilligan both defended the FAA’s original certification of the 787, which was criticized when the plane was initially grounded for replying on inspections from Boeing employees.

Gilligan argued that the tests were conducted to meet standards that were set by the FAA, regardless of who was conducting them.

“The term ‘self-certification’ is a misnomer,” Gilligan told lawmakers.

She added, “It is considered quite an honor to be an FAA designee. It’s taken very seriously.”

Sinnett offered a similar assessment of the original 787 testing process from Boeing’s prospective.

“In my 23 years, I was taught from the beginning that when a Boeing engineer is working on behalf of the FAA, he is completely independent,” he said. “That is deeply engrained in our culture. One of the quickest ways to see disciplinary action is to interfere with engineers working on behalf of the FAA.”

Sinnett said the testing of the 787 batteries during the plane’s grounding encompassed “all realistic scenarios [of possible failures] and more.”

He said the testing gives Boeing “great confidence” in the battery and its casings.