Airbus, FAA Spar Over Lithium Batteries - WSJ July 27, 2016
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus, FAA Spar Over Lithium Batteries - WSJ July 27, 2016
From the Wall Street Journal, July 27, 2016 an article titled, Airbus, FAA Spar Over Lithium Batteries:
Airbus, FAA Spar Over Lithium Batteries - WSJ
Airbus, FAA Spar Over Lithium Batteries - WSJ
In a nutshell:
The FAA seems to be operating under "once bitten, twice shy" on this one.
Escalating arguments about the extent of safeguards and testing for such rechargeable batteries—reminiscent of Boeing Co.’s difficulties with similar technology years ago—come after European regulators already have approved the Airbus systems based on less-stringent requirements.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: antipodies
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just be aware that "lithium batteries" covers a number of chemistries while all contain significant energy when charged, some will go into chemical thermal runaway (burn) and some dont!
There is a big difference in terms of air safety (the ones boeing were using were the type that burn because they have a very slight weight advantage which was lost when they had to build bloody great steel boxes for them)
There is a big difference in terms of air safety (the ones boeing were using were the type that burn because they have a very slight weight advantage which was lost when they had to build bloody great steel boxes for them)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can find the explanation in the first words of the first sentence:
"European jet maker Airbus Group SE is locked in a dispute with U.S. regulators over the safety of lithium-ion batteries installed on its latest model, according to people familiar with the details.".
Also, the US agency is finding a foreign manufacturer an easier target to create an inroad into regulating the battery issue - less lobbying. It's similar to the way the US banned *imports* of automatic weapons to combat gun crime, without offending the domestic gun lobby. One can recall that Boeing was allowed to self-certify its 787 battery system, so clearly domestic manufacturers enjoy a certain leeway on safety issues ... from domestic regulators.
"European jet maker Airbus Group SE is locked in a dispute with U.S. regulators over the safety of lithium-ion batteries installed on its latest model, according to people familiar with the details.".
Also, the US agency is finding a foreign manufacturer an easier target to create an inroad into regulating the battery issue - less lobbying. It's similar to the way the US banned *imports* of automatic weapons to combat gun crime, without offending the domestic gun lobby. One can recall that Boeing was allowed to self-certify its 787 battery system, so clearly domestic manufacturers enjoy a certain leeway on safety issues ... from domestic regulators.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to be clear on B787 battery issue
GS Yuasa self-certified the battery
JCAB accepted GS Yuasa self certification
FAA accepted JCAB certification
EASA accepted FAA certification
Boeing just framed the certificate and hung on the wall
So Boeing, FAA and EASA had no real involvement in testing and certification. But they were deeply involved in steel box design and certification.
There is no permanent fix (without steel box) to B787 battery because GS Yuasa never accepted there is a problem with the battery in the first place.
GS Yuasa self-certified the battery
JCAB accepted GS Yuasa self certification
FAA accepted JCAB certification
EASA accepted FAA certification
Boeing just framed the certificate and hung on the wall
So Boeing, FAA and EASA had no real involvement in testing and certification. But they were deeply involved in steel box design and certification.
There is no permanent fix (without steel box) to B787 battery because GS Yuasa never accepted there is a problem with the battery in the first place.
There is no permanent fix (without steel box) to B787 battery because GS Yuasa never accepted there is a problem with the battery in the first place.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which part is not true?
If they are confident battery is safe with moving around spacers, they don't need 120+ lbs steel box.
As long as there is a steel box, it is not a permanent fix.
Steel box dead weight is almost equivalent to one paid pax.
If they are confident battery is safe with moving around spacers, they don't need 120+ lbs steel box.
As long as there is a steel box, it is not a permanent fix.
Steel box dead weight is almost equivalent to one paid pax.
If Yuasa wouldn't accept there was a problem, why did they redesign the battery?
The steel box was added because they were unable to establish root cause, without knowing root cause they couldn't be confident of the fix.
Given there are over 400 787s currently flying around without battery problems, it looks like the battery redesign worked.
The steel box was added because they were unable to establish root cause, without knowing root cause they couldn't be confident of the fix.
Given there are over 400 787s currently flying around without battery problems, it looks like the battery redesign worked.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corrective action without establishing root cause. Which troubleshooting standard is this.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it is true that the steel confinement weighs about as much as one pax, and if the choice of lithium batteries over nicads is driven by weight, is there any net advantage for lithium?
Perhaps the numbers work out differently for a very electrical aircraft like the 787, which presumably needs more battery capacity than most designs? But I suppose this is a routine consideration in aircraft design; but perhaps the politics of getting FAA approval is an added factor for Airbus? How do the lifetime costs of regulatory processes compare with small differences in weight?
Which part is not true?
If they are confident battery is safe with moving around spacers, they don't need 120+ lbs steel box.
As long as there is a steel box, it is not a permanent fix.
Steel box dead weight is almost equivalent to one paid pax.
If they are confident battery is safe with moving around spacers, they don't need 120+ lbs steel box.
As long as there is a steel box, it is not a permanent fix.
Steel box dead weight is almost equivalent to one paid pax.
Saying that the box is not a permanent fix is like saying any post production in-service mod is not a permanent fix.
In addition, part of the post mod fix was to alter the operational procedures to ensure the battery is not 'stressed' beyond its limits. Its, discharge limits were changed too.
Well there was at least one reported incident in Japan, that battery was quietly replaced. No further info. Why not remove the dead weight of steel box. Airlines can save on fuel.
Corrective action without establishing root cause. Which troubleshooting standard is this.
What did you expect them to do, leave the 787 fleet grounded indefinitely?
BTW, the Airbus proposal of cert by analysis is exactly the course that was followed for the original 787 cert that the FAA was so roundly criticized for. I think Lonewolf is right, the FAA is being extra cautious since the exact same thing when so badly wrong with the 787.
If it is true that the steel confinement weighs about as much as one pax, and if the choice of lithium batteries over nicads is driven by weight, is there any net advantage for lithium?
I thought I read somewhere that Airbus was going to abandon Li batteries for the A350 after the Boeing problems - I wonder why they went back to Li (perhaps they ran into the same size issue?)
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@FlightlessParrot
If I recall correctly 70 lbs LiOn equivalent NiCd will be around 350 lbs. Still NiCd cannot meet 787's hungry power requirements. 120 lb add on is better than 280 lb.
@Turin
120 lbs per battery. It is a heavy thick steel casing to contain thermal runway conditions. Rework and additional weight associated is common on frames, parts already built. But putting a battery in a steel case, forever!!! Is FAA going asking every future battery in a steel case.
@tdracer
Boeing is just an integrator, they have to take whatever partner gives. Welcome to the risk sharing partnership world of B787 program, outsourcing on steroids.
If I recall correctly 70 lbs LiOn equivalent NiCd will be around 350 lbs. Still NiCd cannot meet 787's hungry power requirements. 120 lb add on is better than 280 lb.
@Turin
120 lbs per battery. It is a heavy thick steel casing to contain thermal runway conditions. Rework and additional weight associated is common on frames, parts already built. But putting a battery in a steel case, forever!!! Is FAA going asking every future battery in a steel case.
@tdracer
Boeing is just an integrator, they have to take whatever partner gives. Welcome to the risk sharing partnership world of B787 program, outsourcing on steroids.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the parameters the FAA requires is an overcharge test that can induce thermal runaway. The FAA needs to understand how this develops regarding heat generation, fire, and outgassing. Airbus refusal in making this test is based on theirs and their battery manufacturer's belief that the A350 batteries are immune to overcharging. As the FAA and industry learned with Boeing, Yuasa, SecuraPlane, and Thales on the 787 batteries, never say never.
The overall designer for the 787's electrical system, and chooser of a Lion type battery for the 787 is a French company, working with two American companies providing the integration and charging electronics, and a Japanese battery company. That is a fairly cosmopolitan group. Comments regarding nationalism/NIH beliefs are not applicable here.
Batteries can be charged quicker, have no memory issues from partial charges/discharges and as already mentioned, dramatically higher energy density over NiCads.
The overall designer for the 787's electrical system, and chooser of a Lion type battery for the 787 is a French company, working with two American companies providing the integration and charging electronics, and a Japanese battery company. That is a fairly cosmopolitan group. Comments regarding nationalism/NIH beliefs are not applicable here.
If it is true that the steel confinement weighs about as much as one pax, and if the choice of lithium batteries over nicads is driven by weight, is there any net advantage for lithium?
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: antipodies
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lithium iron phosphate batteries dont burn ok
Yes they will get hot if internal short when charged but do not enter any sort of chemical thermal runaway
They are an order of magnitude safer than the cells Boeing used
A very slight power/weight cost but not when you include a bloody great steel box.
It was a bad call by Boeing and now "lithium batteries" have a bad rap
Unjustified, unnecessary
Huge saveing on lead acid in weight, voltage stability, no explosive gas, non corrosive, just better!
I repeat lithium iron phosphate batteries dont burn !
Yes they will get hot if internal short when charged but do not enter any sort of chemical thermal runaway
They are an order of magnitude safer than the cells Boeing used
A very slight power/weight cost but not when you include a bloody great steel box.
It was a bad call by Boeing and now "lithium batteries" have a bad rap
Unjustified, unnecessary
Huge saveing on lead acid in weight, voltage stability, no explosive gas, non corrosive, just better!
I repeat lithium iron phosphate batteries dont burn !
It was a bad call by Boeing and now "lithium batteries" have a bad rap
Unjustified, unnecessary
Unjustified, unnecessary
Accident investigators have traced a fire that destroyed a UPS Boeing 747 in the United Arab Emirates in 2010 to the lithium batteries being carried in the cargo hold. Unless something is done to prevent similar disasters, the FAA now says such crashes are all but inevitable in the future.
It would seem issue with Li batteries pre-dated the 787 issues by several years...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing did not make the call, Thales did and told the airframer that the battery used on the 787 was safe with proper handling of charging/discharge currents, temps, and the so-called fail-safe electrical integration. They were wrong and the NTSB investigations clearly showed this.
The failure is a perfect example of how outsourcing can go awry. Never take the word of another manufacturer - test and re-test yourself. (Not an easy task in the complex and electronics/software-heavy world of commercial aviation.) It was also illustrative of the dysfunctional certification process that fully approved the 787 batteries in the first place.
Lithium iron phosphate batteries can overheat and outgas and fires are not impossible in the battery assembly, just unlikely. The manufacturer of these batteries includes aviation firefighting strategy guidance should their batteries catch fire. Never say never is the point.
If the Iron Phosphate cells are perfectly safe, Airbus should have no problem testing them for the overcharge condition - satisfying the now-skittish FAA's requirement.
The failure is a perfect example of how outsourcing can go awry. Never take the word of another manufacturer - test and re-test yourself. (Not an easy task in the complex and electronics/software-heavy world of commercial aviation.) It was also illustrative of the dysfunctional certification process that fully approved the 787 batteries in the first place.
Lithium iron phosphate batteries can overheat and outgas and fires are not impossible in the battery assembly, just unlikely. The manufacturer of these batteries includes aviation firefighting strategy guidance should their batteries catch fire. Never say never is the point.
If the Iron Phosphate cells are perfectly safe, Airbus should have no problem testing them for the overcharge condition - satisfying the now-skittish FAA's requirement.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: antipodies
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair cop vapilot "never say never" point taken !
But the lithium iron phosphate chemistry is inherently very much safer in that the battery materials themselves will not sustain a exothermic reaction
Others especially lithium colbalt oxide (the chemistry used in dreamliner do burn in a self sustaining reaction. A very very diferent scenario
Any concentrated energy source can get hot.. very hot when many kwh are contained in a small space, it is reasonable in an aviation setting that cells should be protected from cascading heat failure. But that is a very much easier (and lighter) ask with lipo than li colbalt oxide
But the lithium iron phosphate chemistry is inherently very much safer in that the battery materials themselves will not sustain a exothermic reaction
Others especially lithium colbalt oxide (the chemistry used in dreamliner do burn in a self sustaining reaction. A very very diferent scenario
Any concentrated energy source can get hot.. very hot when many kwh are contained in a small space, it is reasonable in an aviation setting that cells should be protected from cascading heat failure. But that is a very much easier (and lighter) ask with lipo than li colbalt oxide
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand the difference, but thank you Phylos for pointing that out. I am also not disagreeing with you or the battery manufacturer regarding their having qualities that lessen the number of failure modes, including the most serious, thermal runaway. Perhaps Boeing will consider the newer battery chemistry Saft uses for their next endeavour.