Hi,
Sadly Boeing is suffering a serious setback. What´s important now:
787 Back in the skies with batteries within “aviation standards”
Considering it could take long to precisely know what caused one or both incidents and above all, timing is very important for all players, the best path seems to return ASAP to the current “standard”: Ni Cd´s.
A third case is inconceivable.
Any implication like weight penalties, etc. IMO are "becoming small" compared to prolonged grounding. So the business could not wait too much.
It seems wiser to start again the effort to adopt these wonderful but dangerous items in airliners. The 787 program is paying a high price. Even the use of them in the A380 emergency lighting would require a closer look. Not to mention the A350 and other. (Mil not included here)
Despite the current use of electronics “inside the case” of the Thales used in 787, a battery is a simple device. A Lead Acid or Ni Cd may have just cells to work properly. You may “protect” any battery internally, externally or in both ways.
A charger is also a simple device even for Lithium. In the later the operation just requires monitoring
and control of each cell voltage and temperature to keep the cells inside the envelope. (Monitoring the individual cell temperature adds extra safety to properly manage the cells and monitor the unit.) The circuitry required to accomplish this is also “simple”. (a closed loop system). And with the protections ideally derating the battery for airliners application, the advantages of Lithium versus Ni Cd will certainly be reduced.
I am a technician, love high performance items but the management of the crisis demands a sound managerial decision making.
With safety first, looking to the people and the business involved.
Mac
bsieker:
...with all the redesign that requires.
Easily affordable, IMO.