SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks talk with Judy Woodruff about President Barack Obama's "red line" on Syria, the FAA furlough deal in Congress, repercussions of the Boston Marathon attack and George W. Bush's newly dedicated presidential center.
IF one thing is clear after this week’s National Transportation Safety Board hearings on the certification of the Boeing 787’s lithium-ion battery, it is that the Federal Aviation Administration and the industry it regulates share a cozy relationship that sometimes takes a front seat to safety. This relationship contributed to the grounding of the 787 Dreamliner in January and the astonishing swiftness with which the airplane was approved to return to commercial flight.
As a former chairman of the safety board, I know firsthand that effective government oversight helps prevent fatal airplane accidents. For decades, the F.A.A. has used what it calls “designated airworthiness representatives” to certify that aircraft meet government safety standards. They were experts selected and supervised by the agency, even if they worked for the manufacturer. But in 2005, the F.A.A. changed the process of selecting those designees, ruling that aircraft manufacturers who qualified under the new procedures could choose their own employees to certify their planes. The distinction is important, because it suggests a slide toward industry self-certification.
This laissez-faire certification system would save the aviation industry nearly $25 million between 2006 and 2015, the F.A.A. said at the time — a pittance when compared with Boeing’s $81 billion in revenue for 2012. It is no coincidence that the committee that helped develop this process was made up of industry members. Essentially, aircraft makers persuaded the F.A.A. to let them certify their own aircraft so they could save money.
Problems with the plane’s lithium-ion batteries emerged about 14 months after the 787 entered commercial service in November 2011, underscoring the folly of this policy. As we learned from this week’s hearings, the agency let Boeing help write the safety standards, develop the testing protocol and then perform those tests. In 2008, a year after standards for the battery system were approved with special conditions on the containment and venting of the batteries, stricter industry guidelines for these batteries were released. But the F.A.A. did not require the 787 to meet those new guidelines.
The potential for these batteries to catch fire was well known. In 2011, one of these batteries on a jet built by Cessna started smoking. The F.A.A. ordered Cessna to remove the batteries, and Cessna replaced them with less combustible nickel-cadmium batteries. Incredibly, the F.A.A. failed to absorb the lessons of this experience.
Boeing initially estimated that there was the potential for one battery failure incident in 10 million flight hours. As it turned out, smoke and fire broke out in batteries on two separate 787’s in just the first 52,000 flight hours. Even Boeing’s chief engineer on the 787, Mike Sinnett, acknowledged to the N.T.S.B. that one of the battery tests had been inadequate and was not “conservative enough.”
Now the 787 has been grounded for months, the F.A.A. has lost face, and Boeing has been losing $50 million a week on a plane that was supposed to demonstrate innovative aircraft design and help the United States recapture its onetime dominance of the world aircraft market.
Given all of that, the F.A.A.’s recent decision to approve Boeing’s plans to fix the lithium-ion battery seems shortsighted and represents a complete failure of government oversight. It is puzzling that the agency was so quick on its feet to accommodate Boeing in recertifying the safety of the airplane, without even knowing the root cause of the battery problem.
And where has Congress been? The first hearing on Capitol Hill on the 787 was held just one week ago. But some of the testimony was very telling. The Government Accountability Office questioned the F.A.A.’s ability to maintain the up-to-date knowledge necessary to approve new equipment, and the Department of Transportation’s inspector general criticized the agency for failing to ensure that personnel designated by aircraft manufacturers to certify their aircraft or components were competent to do so.
Congress needs to take a closer look at the F.A.A.’s practices and procedures to make sure that safety is the top priority, and should overhaul the agency to provide more direct government oversight as new aviation technologies are introduced.
We enjoy the safest commercial aviation system in the world. But what about tomorrow? After the N.T.S.B. hearings, this question is more important than ever.
Batteries similar to those at the center of the recent problems with Boeing Co.'s 787 Dreamliner have raised growing concerns with air-safety regulators in recent years.
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration ordered a halt to Dreamliner flights on Wednesday after two major battery malfunctions aboard the aircraft, and regulators world-wide followed the FAA's lead, effectively grounding Boeing's flagship jet.
Until now, the biggest worry about lithium-ion batteries centered on the kind used in electronics products, such as laptop computers and cellphones, that were shipped in bulk as air cargo or stowed in passengers' carry-on baggage. The Dreamliner is the first passenger plane to use big lithium batteries as a backup power source.
It remains unclear whether the Dreamliner's batteries, which are produced by Japanese battery maker GS Yuasa Co., caused the problems on two Dreamliners operated by All Nippon Airways Co. and Japan Airlines, respectively. Other factors, such as their wiring or installation, could have contributed to the incidents, industry officials say.
Whatever the cause, the power cells posed a risk because they are highly flammable under certain conditions. Lithium batteries are vulnerable to overheating if overcharged, or if discharged too rapidly, and overheated or damaged batteries can catch fire. They burn at extremely high temperatures, may emit flammable vapors, flames or sparks, and can even explode.
The danger is related to what makes the batteries popular: They can store large amounts of energy. They combine light weight and compact size with the ability to charge up and discharge quickly.
Over the past decade, aviation regulators have recorded dozens of incidents in which lithium batteries in consumer products have overheated or caught fire on planes or at airports. Stricter international safety rules kicked in this year to tackle the hazards of shipping such batteries by air.
Large shipments of the power cells are suspected of having played a role in the fatal crashes of two jumbo-jet cargo planes in 2010 and 2011 and the destruction of a smaller freighter in 2006, according to safety officials.
Despite the concerns about lithium batteries, they are being used more widely in aircraft. The U.S. military's new F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter jet uses lithium-ion batteries produced by a unit of French battery maker Saft Groupe SA. No safety incidents with the units have been publicly reported.
A spokesman for Lockheed Martin Corp., which builds the fighter, said in a statement that its batteries aren't from GS Yuasa, and that "we expect no impact [on the Joint Strike Fighter] program."
Europe aircraft maker Airbus, a unit of European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co., uses small lithium batteries for emergency power on its two-deck A380 super-jumbo, which entered service in 2007.
Airbus plans to use bigger lithium batteries on its new A350 model, now in development, but those cells still will be smaller than those aboard the Dreamliner. Saft will supply the A350 batteries, Airbus said.
The Dreamliner is an unusual airplane because it relies on electric power for most of its functions.
Previous airliners from Boeing, Airbus and other manufacturers have used a combination of electrical and mechanical power drawn from a plane's engines.
The new Airbus A350 will use roughly one-third the electric power of the Dreamliner, Airbus officials said Thursday. The plane also uses two batteries in parallel where Boeing uses one, reducing the power that each one stores and discharges, Airbus officials said.
"We don't need as much power, and it's a different architecture on the A350," said Tom Williams, Airbus's executive vice president for programs. He declined to comment on how the 787 incidents might influence the A350's battery design. "We need to wait and see what the investigation tells us," he said.
As concerns about the batteries have increased, the FAA has conducted extensive testing of their performance. In at least one test, the batteries burned hot enough to melt test equipment, according to a person familiar with the results.
In another set of tests last year, the FAA caused lithium batteries in a laptop computer to ignite in the cockpit of a Boeing 737 jet. Pilots increasingly use laptop and tablet computers as replacements for the heavy maps and manuals they have long lugged around.
The test focused more on the smoke hazard from a fire than the damage caused by flames. To disperse the smoke, the testers boosted ventilation in the cockpit, replacing its air entirely once every minute, according to an FAA report of the test.
Nevertheless, the testing showed that a standard lithium laptop battery, which is much smaller than the models on the Dreamliner, "could pose a significant smoke hazard" in the cockpit, the report said. In one test, the smoke was dense enough to cause a "severe lack of visibility."
JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): This week has been a bumpy ride, to say the least, for aviation giant Boeing and its new jet, a week capped by the government's decision to look closely at the plane's operating systems again.
Margaret Warner has the story.
MARGARET WARNER (Newshour): Boeing began delivering its sophisticated new 787 Dreamliner jet to much fanfare 14 months ago, after years of production delays. Now a series of recent incidents has raised concerns about the 50 planes in the air, so much so that, today, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration, Michael Huerta, announced a comprehensive review.
MICHAEL HUERTA, Federal Aviation Administration: The focus is on the design, production, and manufacture of the airplane. We're focusing on the electrical systems as the highest level of priority. Our focus is on what the data tells us and what we identify as potential issues there. And based on what we learn, we will take whatever appropriate action is necessary.
A selection of audio recordings from the Federal Aviation Administration (F.A.A.), North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and American Airlines from the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. The recordings, some of which have been published previously, are being released in a multimedia report originally intended to be part of the Sept. 11 Commission’s 2004 report. Read Related Article »
