FAA Grounds 787s
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whisper to the good Mr Pub User:
Yes, the containment requirement is an FAA mandate. As to the rest, it is truly an international group to the rescue. For the reshuffling of the computer bits or bytes, Boeing is deferring in this case to the experts at Thales équipe de logique for Lion.v1.2. (patch codename:charger no fue) While I don't have direct knowledge of whether the cell isolation 'solution' originated in Everett or from the folks at GS Yuasa, I have heard from more than one source that the ongoing effort continues to be collaborative all around.
All of that was Boeing's solution, and I believe the FAA then insisted on an improvement in the containment device, just in case..
I wrote on 18 Feb 2013...
Unfortunately with the latest Boeing Test Plan that has been approved by the FAA, our worse case scenario now seems to have come to fruition.
Boeing plans to apply tinkering software to the battery control mechanism and include a titanium bandaid to the battery just in case the they got the software tinkering wrong...which would eventuate into an inextinguishable airborne fire in a titanium box...but it won't bother the passengers according to Boeing Management...
If the FAA approves this fix, in the fullness of time and most unfortunately, the NTSB will have their arse (ass for US folk), both the FAA and Boeing...alas...
Quote:
787 Battery Containment Plan Firms Up
As Boeing’s 787 enters the second month of its fleet-wide grounding, the U.S. airframer is poring over data collected on a series of flight and ground tests and says it is making “good progress” toward a solution.
The fix, at least in the short term, continues to be focused on improving containment of the aircraft’s two existing lithium-ion batteries and adding more temperature monitors to provide earlier warning of abnormal battery performance via the engine indicating and crew alerting system.
This is a very scary scenario when an aircraft manufacturer decides that the best fix (at least in the short term) is to improve the ability to contain Lithium ion battery fires and explosions that are probable (a certainty?) with statistically significant number of flight cycles over the next year or so.
The concept of trying to cope with flying a passenger aircraft with a ticking time bombs in both battery bays by adding additional layers of fire protection as opposed to the obvious solution of removing said time bomb is ludicrous to the extreme.
This route smacks very much of commercial interference and corruption of due process over what should be a very straight forward engineering solution.
At least Airbus has now demonstrated the strength of their conviction by announcing the decision that they will take the Lithium ion battery out of their A350 and replace it with Ni Cads until Lithium ion technology catches up with the required public transport mandated reliability requirements.
Wake up Boeing! Listen to your engineers. Without you, Airbus will inherit a monopoly and monopolies are bad for aviation.
787 Battery Containment Plan Firms Up
As Boeing’s 787 enters the second month of its fleet-wide grounding, the U.S. airframer is poring over data collected on a series of flight and ground tests and says it is making “good progress” toward a solution.
The fix, at least in the short term, continues to be focused on improving containment of the aircraft’s two existing lithium-ion batteries and adding more temperature monitors to provide earlier warning of abnormal battery performance via the engine indicating and crew alerting system.
This is a very scary scenario when an aircraft manufacturer decides that the best fix (at least in the short term) is to improve the ability to contain Lithium ion battery fires and explosions that are probable (a certainty?) with statistically significant number of flight cycles over the next year or so.
The concept of trying to cope with flying a passenger aircraft with a ticking time bombs in both battery bays by adding additional layers of fire protection as opposed to the obvious solution of removing said time bomb is ludicrous to the extreme.
This route smacks very much of commercial interference and corruption of due process over what should be a very straight forward engineering solution.
At least Airbus has now demonstrated the strength of their conviction by announcing the decision that they will take the Lithium ion battery out of their A350 and replace it with Ni Cads until Lithium ion technology catches up with the required public transport mandated reliability requirements.
Wake up Boeing! Listen to your engineers. Without you, Airbus will inherit a monopoly and monopolies are bad for aviation.
Boeing plans to apply tinkering software to the battery control mechanism and include a titanium bandaid to the battery just in case the they got the software tinkering wrong...which would eventuate into an inextinguishable airborne fire in a titanium box...but it won't bother the passengers according to Boeing Management...
If the FAA approves this fix, in the fullness of time and most unfortunately, the NTSB will have their arse (ass for US folk), both the FAA and Boeing...alas...
Last edited by FlexibleResponse; 15th Mar 2013 at 07:05.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris, France
Age: 62
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a Boeing press release
Source: subscription to Boeing media alerts, see
The Boeing Company: Commercial Airplanes - 787
Update: the full press release is available here
Boeing Provides Details on 787 Battery Improvements - Mar 14, 2013
The Boeing Company: Commercial Airplanes - 787
(..)
The first layer of improvements is taking place during the manufacture of the batteries in Japan. Boeing teamed with Thales, the provider of the integrated power conversion system, and battery maker GS Yuasa to develop and institute enhanced production standards and tests to further reduce any possibility for variation in the production of the individual cells as well as the overall battery.(..)
Four new or revised tests have been added to screen cell production, which now includes 10 distinct tests. Each cell will go through more rigorous testing in the month following its manufacture including a 14-day test during which readings of discharge rates are being taken every hour. This new procedure started in early February and the first cells through the process are already complete. There are more than a dozen production acceptance tests that must be completed for each battery.
Boeing, Thales and GS Yuasa have also decided to narrow the acceptable level of charge for the battery, both by lowering the highest charge allowed and raising the lower level allowed for discharge. Two pieces of equipment in the battery system – the battery monitoring unit and the charger are being redesigned to the narrower definition. The battery charger will also be adapted to soften the charging cycle to put less stress on the battery during charging.
(..)
At least this suggests a possible cause of the issue has been identified and cured. Of course there is more, in particular w.r.t. containment of problem.The first layer of improvements is taking place during the manufacture of the batteries in Japan. Boeing teamed with Thales, the provider of the integrated power conversion system, and battery maker GS Yuasa to develop and institute enhanced production standards and tests to further reduce any possibility for variation in the production of the individual cells as well as the overall battery.(..)
Four new or revised tests have been added to screen cell production, which now includes 10 distinct tests. Each cell will go through more rigorous testing in the month following its manufacture including a 14-day test during which readings of discharge rates are being taken every hour. This new procedure started in early February and the first cells through the process are already complete. There are more than a dozen production acceptance tests that must be completed for each battery.
Boeing, Thales and GS Yuasa have also decided to narrow the acceptable level of charge for the battery, both by lowering the highest charge allowed and raising the lower level allowed for discharge. Two pieces of equipment in the battery system – the battery monitoring unit and the charger are being redesigned to the narrower definition. The battery charger will also be adapted to soften the charging cycle to put less stress on the battery during charging.
(..)
Update: the full press release is available here
Boeing Provides Details on 787 Battery Improvements - Mar 14, 2013
Last edited by fgrieu; 17th Mar 2013 at 10:08. Reason: Link to official press reslease
Hm... lower maximum capacity and higher minimum charge state seems to equal less usable capacity. And the reinforced battery casing is also likely not doing anything to keep the weight down.
I cannot help but wonder whether this is just some quick stab at the problem to get the aircraft going again rather than a permanent solution. After all, the original battery capacity must have been determined with something in mind, and this "something" certainly was not "Let´s keep some margin in there for whatever trouble might brew up in the future".
I cannot help but wonder whether this is just some quick stab at the problem to get the aircraft going again rather than a permanent solution. After all, the original battery capacity must have been determined with something in mind, and this "something" certainly was not "Let´s keep some margin in there for whatever trouble might brew up in the future".
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC News - Dreamliner: Boeing says flights to restart in 'weeks'
Re the above report I just hope Mr Sinnetts quotes don't come back to haunt him in the future.
"Absolutely" to the question "Is the aircraft safe" and " Among the safest Airplanes our company has ever produced"
Like others my family and I won't be on one any time soon and don't under estimate the public with situations like this!
Once flying this plane will be understandably under so much scrutiny,lots of people's reputations on the line.
Time will tell!
Re the above report I just hope Mr Sinnetts quotes don't come back to haunt him in the future.
"Absolutely" to the question "Is the aircraft safe" and " Among the safest Airplanes our company has ever produced"
Like others my family and I won't be on one any time soon and don't under estimate the public with situations like this!
Once flying this plane will be understandably under so much scrutiny,lots of people's reputations on the line.
Time will tell!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So they've identified the problem is their PR line, and are seeking approval to fly on the basis of their "fix."
If they are confident that everything will be okay, I presume that once flights are resumed they will not be wasting any further time investigating this issue. All back to work as usual.
I don't think so! They will be looking at this for a long time to come, and in the meanwhile they'll be praying for a run of good luck.
If they are confident that everything will be okay, I presume that once flights are resumed they will not be wasting any further time investigating this issue. All back to work as usual.
I don't think so! They will be looking at this for a long time to come, and in the meanwhile they'll be praying for a run of good luck.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least this suggests a possible cause of the issue has been identified and cured.
It was already in the public domain that this particular battery chemistry is more prone to failure at the upper and lower limits of its capacity. If a cause had been found it would likely be at one or other of those limits and that limit only would be altered, thereby preserving at least some of the battery's capacity.
Narrowing the operating window by not charging it as high or letting it discharge so low, suggests to me that they are just improving the odds of a failure by keeping it out of the 'danger zone'.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't say I'm happy about the developments. Looks like Boeing has now redefined what a "thermal runaway" is, and, like magic, therefore a thermal runaway never happened. 
From FlightGobal Boeing details 787 battery redesign, rebuts safety claims:
In Boeing's view, neither incident met the company's internal definition for the condition called "thermal runaway". That is a situation in which there "is so much energy, so much heat and so much flame that it would put the airplane at risk", Sinnett says. "We know very clearly this was not the case in the Logan event and the Takamatsu event."
From FlightGobal Boeing details 787 battery redesign, rebuts safety claims:
In Boeing's view, neither incident met the company's internal definition for the condition called "thermal runaway". That is a situation in which there "is so much energy, so much heat and so much flame that it would put the airplane at risk", Sinnett says. "We know very clearly this was not the case in the Logan event and the Takamatsu event."
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing are behaving like King Canute. Putting the batteries in a box will just move the issue up one notch to a "containment failure". So from two problems in 3 months on a fleet of 50 or so planes, we can expect one problem per year or so from 1000 planes, which may not mean a lot in insurance terms but can be pricey when measured in souls.
By choosing to adopt containment at this stage, Boeing is also permanently rejecting the deployment of another battery technology across its fleet.
I think Boeing now needs to convince its shareholders that the 787 will be used mainly outside the US as this makes a marked difference in the risk of lawsuits and death compensation. Although I guess, about $1 Billion payout (3 airframe losses during the service lifetime) is perfectly acceptable for the execs, who hope this problem will only hit after they have left.
By choosing to adopt containment at this stage, Boeing is also permanently rejecting the deployment of another battery technology across its fleet.
I think Boeing now needs to convince its shareholders that the 787 will be used mainly outside the US as this makes a marked difference in the risk of lawsuits and death compensation. Although I guess, about $1 Billion payout (3 airframe losses during the service lifetime) is perfectly acceptable for the execs, who hope this problem will only hit after they have left.
Last edited by edmundronald; 15th Mar 2013 at 15:30.
In Boeing's view, neither incident met the company's internal definition for the condition called "thermal runaway". That is a situation in which there "is so much energy, so much heat and so much flame that it would put the airplane at risk", Sinnett says. "We know very clearly this was not the case in the Logan event and the Takamatsu event."
The "contained" burn damage occurred *despite* a fire crew arriving extremely promptly and using large amounts of extinguishant over the period of an hour or more. A luxury which is not available in the air, where the aeroplane was shortly beforehand.
This is commercial/political spin of the worst order and I wish Boeing would stop it and get on with fixing the problem(s). IMHO they should fire some of the management and hire some more engineers...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fullwings -
Everybody who has lit a newspaper knows that unattended fires burn.
The Boeing execs have lost it, and the FAA supervision is craven. Do congresscritters and their families fly in planes?
Everybody who has lit a newspaper knows that unattended fires burn.
The Boeing execs have lost it, and the FAA supervision is craven. Do congresscritters and their families fly in planes?
Boeing's PR version of "nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong..." is "nothing did go wrong, go wrong,go wrong..."!
Last edited by ozaub; 16th Mar 2013 at 02:00. Reason: Small improvement
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 70
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Boeing's view, neither incident met the company's internal definition for the condition called "thermal runaway". That is a situation in which there "is so much energy, so much heat and so much flame that it would put the airplane at risk", Sinnett says. "We know very clearly this was not the case in the Logan event and the Takamatsu event."
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 70
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight test?
Anyone else think that a "single validation flight test" and hundreds of hours of laboratory testing is not enough?
Unless the flight test is orbiting for 11 hours over the north Pacific and flight-starting the APU 2 or 3 times. I assume Mike Sinnett will be aboard?
Unless the flight test is orbiting for 11 hours over the north Pacific and flight-starting the APU 2 or 3 times. I assume Mike Sinnett will be aboard?
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course it is enough. Boeing has told us that. As former Boeing executives have made clear the FAA does not have the ability to judge them. By definition none of us do. Supreme arrogance is still that, even if they are correct on specifics. My confidence has not been improved by their attitudes. The word hubris comes to mind.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the report in Flight Global especially the first paragraph...., this makes the whole thing very worrying.. Also noted that they are going for a higher discharge level that is a guarantee for battery heating and potential failure IMO.
Qte:
Root cause of 787 battery issues may never be found: Boeing
Print
By: ELLIS TAYLOR SINGAPORE 15 hours ago Source:
Boeing says the root cause of the 787 battery failures may never be established, but that it is moving ahead with a solution aimed at getting the aircraft back in the air.
The 787 fleet was grounded on 16 January following two incidents in which their lithium-ion batteries failed after overheating and leaking electrolyte, resulting in significant charring.
In the first incident, an auxiliary power unit battery on a Japan Airlines 787 failed while the aircraft was on the ground at Boston Logan International Airport, while in the second incident, an All Nippon Airways 787 had to be diverted to Takamatsu in Japan after the crew received a cockpit alert saying that the main battery had failed.
Boeing and battery manufacturer GS Yuasa have been working with the Japan Transport Safety Bureau and the US National Transportation Safety Board to investigate the battery incidents, but no definitive cause has been found for the battery faults so far.
"In the events of Logan and Takamatsu, we may never get to a single root cause, but the process we applied to understand the improvements that can be made is the most robust process that we have ever followed," says Boeing's vice-president and chief project engineer, Mike Sinnett.
Boeing has proposed significant changes to the battery system aimed at making it easier to cool the lithium-ion cells, as well as a new containment solution which would prevent overheated battery cells from starting a fire.
It has also reworked the battery charger with reduced maximum charging levels, a higher maximum discharging level and a softened charging sequence.
The US Federal Aviation Administration has approved a certification plan for the modified systems, which will undergo rigorous laboratory testing and a validation flight test before being certified for use on the global 787 fleet.
Qte:
Root cause of 787 battery issues may never be found: Boeing
By: ELLIS TAYLOR SINGAPORE 15 hours ago Source:
Boeing says the root cause of the 787 battery failures may never be established, but that it is moving ahead with a solution aimed at getting the aircraft back in the air.
The 787 fleet was grounded on 16 January following two incidents in which their lithium-ion batteries failed after overheating and leaking electrolyte, resulting in significant charring.
In the first incident, an auxiliary power unit battery on a Japan Airlines 787 failed while the aircraft was on the ground at Boston Logan International Airport, while in the second incident, an All Nippon Airways 787 had to be diverted to Takamatsu in Japan after the crew received a cockpit alert saying that the main battery had failed.
Boeing and battery manufacturer GS Yuasa have been working with the Japan Transport Safety Bureau and the US National Transportation Safety Board to investigate the battery incidents, but no definitive cause has been found for the battery faults so far.
"In the events of Logan and Takamatsu, we may never get to a single root cause, but the process we applied to understand the improvements that can be made is the most robust process that we have ever followed," says Boeing's vice-president and chief project engineer, Mike Sinnett.
Boeing has proposed significant changes to the battery system aimed at making it easier to cool the lithium-ion cells, as well as a new containment solution which would prevent overheated battery cells from starting a fire.
It has also reworked the battery charger with reduced maximum charging levels, a higher maximum discharging level and a softened charging sequence.
The US Federal Aviation Administration has approved a certification plan for the modified systems, which will undergo rigorous laboratory testing and a validation flight test before being certified for use on the global 787 fleet.
Last edited by ITman; 16th Mar 2013 at 00:56.