PDA

View Full Version : FAA Grounds 787s


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Carbon Bootprint
16th Jan 2013, 22:24
CNN's "Breaking News" reports say the US FAA has decided to "temporarily" ground all 787 aircraft for safety concerns until a fire risk can be evaluated.

Can't say I'm surprised after the action in Japan, but it can't be good for Boeing. IIRC, United is the only US carrier operating the Dreamliner. Since delivery, they have been used only on domestic US routes. They were to have inaugurated IAH-LOS service with the plane, but that was delayed some time ago.

ETA: CNN website headline reads "U.S. regulators order airlines to ground all Boeing 787 Dreamliners until battery fire risk issue is solved"

FlightPathOBN
16th Jan 2013, 22:46
Headliner here in Boeing land...

The Seattle Times | News, sports, weather, events in the Northwest (http://seattletimes.com/html/home/index.html)

crHedBngr
16th Jan 2013, 22:56
Another link from the Wall Street Journal: FAA Grounds U.S. Boeing 787 Dreamliner Flights - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323783704578245501214772818.html)

Boeing stock down by 3.4%.

bubbers44
17th Jan 2013, 01:32
Are they Chinese batteries? Why can't we just use US batteries if that is the problem. I hope our country can get away from china :mad:. I try to make all my purchases from American manufacturers. I bought two HDMI cables made in china, one worked. Sent it back and bought it for less than half of what I paid for the China :mad: and everything worked for one third the cost. Let us all just buy from America. Our US made batteries alway worked just fine in jets.

FlightPathOBN
17th Jan 2013, 01:48
bubbers...really?
Lets just suspect that you have at least a basic 4th grade education, and I will go out on a limb on that, it is very easy to determine that the batteries were made by a Japanese Company, in fact, much of the aircraft was made in Japan...
You will also find that there are virtually NO batteries made in the US.

It appears you have internet, so do a search for where the parts of Boeing aircraft are made. You will find that virtually the entire aircraft parts are made outside the US, and ASSEMBLED in the US.

Pontius
17th Jan 2013, 01:51
Are they Chinese batteries? No.

As for the rest of your diatribe; how does that saying go regarding specks in one's own eye first? I'm certainly one of the last people on the planet to speak up in favour of the Chinese but there are plenty of incidents and accidents that have been caused by US-produced parts: centre fuel pumps, landing gear actuators, rudder servos etc, so it's probably a good idea to stop flinging those stones around in your glasshouse.

In making the 787 Boeing out-sourced more manufacturing and parts than on any model aircraft they've previously built. This, of course, contributed to the delivery delays and now we are, possibly, seeing another downside to their strategy. IF the batteries are to blame, and not some other system that's causing the batteries to misbehave then, by all means, get the problem sorted but there's nothing to suggest the batteries of the US are any better, or worse, than those produced elsewhere.

Our US made batteries alway worked just fine in jets.

I couldn't tell you where the batteries on any of the aircraft I've flown were made. Can you tell me that all the jets in which the batteries 'worked just fine' were made in the USA?


Edited to add: Sorry FBO, looks like we crossed in the post. I must type faster in future :)

FactionOne
17th Jan 2013, 02:33
[Long time lurker, didn't envisage registration finally being prompted quite how it was, but there you go...]

bubbers44:

Setting aside where the batteries are manufactured for a second, there are numerous technical differences between the batteries and the systems they're used for on a 787 than almost anything else in the sky, particularly airliners. They'd still be vastly different to practically everything gone before even if they were made by uncle sam's own fair hand.

It's self-defeating to write off the rest of the world so quickly too, since large swathes of it are at least capable enough to realise that your ignorant outlook is unlikely to be high on a normal distribution curve for fellow citizens of your beloved US of A.

To save everyone some frustration, you should probably disconnect the computer/smartphone/whatever you used to post that bilge, as it's sure shootn certain to be full of foreign manufactured components. Perhaps even li-ion from the far east.

To everyone else:

Greetings, and apologies for that opening rant.

While I'm normally an advocate of a 'better safe than sorry' outlook, it's a shame that these issues are feeding the news stand machine; which of course risks disproportionately affecting perception of the aircraft and/or the technology onboard.

Here's hoping that the situation is resolved and aircraft returned to flight before the tabloid media smell blood.

Anti Skid On
17th Jan 2013, 03:14
Bubbers, are you for real, the USA doesn't make much any more; I read last year that GE closed their last light bulb factory and all the bulbs are now made in China.

Chinese batteries seem to be good enough for everyones laptops, Ipads, digital cameras, etc...

BTW, how long before Airbus change their website? Home | A350 XWB by Airbus (http://www.a350xwb.com/#eco-efficient/alternative-energy/)

Seems they intend to use Li-Ion cells too.

NWA SLF
17th Jan 2013, 03:25
Lithium Ion batteries have had their fire problems in computers, cars, drills, just about in everything in which they have been used. I remember several years ago a regional carrier on which I often flew wouldn't let us have our carry-on computer bags that wouldn't fit go into the hold due to battery fire danger. We had to take the computer and spare batteries if we had them out and keep them with us at our seat where a fire hazard would be easily identified. Back then it was suspected contamination in the battery material. By the way Airbus does use some Lithium-ion batteries on current planes but nowhere to the extent of the 787.

Old Carthusian
17th Jan 2013, 03:54
The batteries in this case are made by Yuasa - a Japanese company. Personally, I am beginning to suspect that the global nature of this project has proved a bit too much of a management challenge for Boeing.

jackx123
17th Jan 2013, 04:06
Batteries or else the ultimate responsibility lies with B. They selected all subcontractors, suppliers including QA checks etc. and I suppose also conducted all steps necessary for certification.

Lon More
17th Jan 2013, 05:49
I suspect Boing forced the pace a bit too much in order to play catch-up with Airbus.
Chickens and roost come to mind.

greenspinner
17th Jan 2013, 05:56
Made in America.

Yuasa Battery, Inc. has been manufacturing motorcycle batteries in the U.S.A.
Yuasa Batteries :: About Yuasa (http://www.yuasabatteries.com/about.php)

GSYuasa Lithium Power | Lithium Batteries for the Next Generation (http://www.gsyuasa-lp.com/)

tezzer
17th Jan 2013, 06:15
Bubbers, you really just re-enforce my general opinion of my cousins from across the Atlantic.

Apologies to educated Americans.

yarpos
17th Jan 2013, 06:20
I read bubbers post and get a mental picture of a homer simpson-ish figure pounding on a keyboard muttering "stupid chinese batteries" ...... havent visited pprune for a long while......made my day really

captjns
17th Jan 2013, 06:24
Boeing will be happy to know that Air Indiis still utilizing their almost shiny B787s. Saw one taxing out in VIDP this morning.

Trackmaster
17th Jan 2013, 06:27
And I hope bubbers noted the passenger entry doors were made by those 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' in France.
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going

LiveryMan
17th Jan 2013, 06:29
I suspect Boing forced the pace a bit too much in order to play catch-up with Airbus.
Chickens and roost come to mind.

Catch up to what? Last I checked, it was Airbus playing catch-up with their A350.
Boeing's 787 order books do not paint the picture of a manufacturer in need to rush something to market.

I suspect that Old Carthusian is correct on this one.
Too many suppliers, not enough quality control.

Walnut
17th Jan 2013, 06:35
I was amazed to handle a small battery of the type which seems to be causing all the problems. It was for a light a/c & was about 25% lighter & smaller than the current one I am using. Surely two larger versions for the 787 could not be a significant weight penalty.? Maybe the real problem could be the unusual all electric design of this a/c. There must be huge amounts of electrical energy being shunted around the wiring looms.

bsieker
17th Jan 2013, 06:44
captjns,
Boeing will be happy to know that Air Indiis still utilizing their almost shiny B787s. Saw one taxing out in VIDP this morning.

Interesting, since Reuters reports otherwise:
DGCA grounds Air India's Dreamliners after U.S. decision | Reuters (http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/boeing-india-dreamliners-grounded-idINDEE90G01W20130117)

anengineer
17th Jan 2013, 07:03
Wow... these things run on batteries ? The wonders of modern science eh !

What happens if they need to put fresh ones in and they're already in the air ?



:E

glad rag
17th Jan 2013, 07:05
Well it's 4 minutes past 8 and that's made my day!



edited for stupid Chinese keyboard

gtf
17th Jan 2013, 07:13
All 787s may be grounded by end of day.
LOT, LAN, Air India either chose or were made to follow FAA lead.
No word from Ethiopian but other planes put in service today for scheduled 787s.
Qatar?

WindSheer
17th Jan 2013, 07:16
Dont go to hard on bubbers guys, he is one of those that devotes his life to everything Boeing, stars and stripes etc! A bit like all British who use 'us' and 'we' when talking about Man United......there aint much British about those either!
On a serious note i think the FAA had little option, fail to step in and a unit goes down over the pond......they would have had a lot of answering. I am quite interested that Boeing didnt step in first.

BRE
17th Jan 2013, 07:23
Well it seems it is a non-issue for Boeing because they took into account a possible battery fire and say the airplane can stay aloft with a full-blown battery fire. presumably for the full ETOPS time frame.

Somehow this does not give me a warm and cozy feeling. Have they really found the worst case fire scenario, including damage to other electrical systems, overload of the remaining system, spread etc.

airsmiles
17th Jan 2013, 07:34
presumably for the full ETOPS time frame

Boeing still haven't been certified to the full 330 minutes ETOPS time so is this due to the battery/electrical problem?

As a potential 787 passenger, I'd rather Boeing were confident that "the 787 won't develop a full-blown fire" rather than them say "the 787 can handle a full-blown fire and remain in the air". It's not good PR and won't help me sleep mid-atlantic on the red-eye. For Boeing the whole issue of teething troubles need really tight PR to maintain airline and passenger confidence.

Lemain
17th Jan 2013, 07:46
Whichever way I look at this, there is only one ray of sunshine - we haven't had a loss of life. Whether you're in the supply-side, a driver, a passenger or just another member of the human race who lives in the real world this is terrible news. Only Boeing and Airbus make aircraft like this. We need competition. Even the 'anti-Boeing pro Airbus' brigade should join in defending aviation per se because it is the credibility of aviation that is being harmed, not just Boeing. Any of these issues could just as easily have happened with Airbus.

Lon More
17th Jan 2013, 07:51
Liveryman posted Catch up to what?

Airbus A380 first flight 27-4-2005
Boeing 787 first flight 15-12-2009

LiveryMan
17th Jan 2013, 07:52
Are you serious? You are comparing the 787 to the A380? Go to Airliners.net and do that. I'm sure they'ed love to have you there. :ok: :ugh:

BOAC
17th Jan 2013, 07:57
Any mods out of their pyjamas yet? My mouse wheel is in danger of burning out with 5 x 787 threads running.

BRE
17th Jan 2013, 08:02
I don't think it has been pointed out, but the power distribution and charging circuits seem to be made by Thales:
Boeing 787 Thales (http://www.thalesgroup.com/News_and_events/Countries/Spain/Thales_technologies_onboard_the_B787/)

Bubbers' gonna have a field day...

KiloMikePapa
17th Jan 2013, 08:04
Just heard on the radio: B787 grounded in Europe as well

Innaflap
17th Jan 2013, 08:11
One would hope that these are not lithium cobalt oxide cells.......

airsmiles
17th Jan 2013, 08:14
Airbus A380 first flight 27-4-2005
Boeing 787 first flight 15-12-2009

Not really the correct comparison.

I think the B787 will eventually be a game-changer but it might take another year or so to settle down. Boeing may yet lead the market with this product.

Airbus introduced an innovative VLA product to market with the A380 that Boeing didn't, but it also had numerous teething troubles. Despite Emirates best efforts the A380 isn't exactly a run-away sales success. However, Boeing's 747-8 has been a real sales disappointment so I suppose you could argue Airbus leads this segment of the market.

As for the B777 in it's various forms, surely Boeing must be regarded as a class winner to produce such a fine product in great numbers. I'm really looking forward to seeing what Boeing do to replace the B777.

Airbus does well with the A330 though, sitting below the B777 size aircraft and gets a tick in the box for it.

For me, the A320 v B737 debate is a waste of breath as they sell in roughly the same numbers and have attributes that appeal to different customers. I'd give them both a tick in the box for their respective products.

In short, I don't think either Airbus or Boeing leads one over the other overall. As each brings in a new model, you could argue they gain a lead but it a fluid game where each competitor leads the other from time to time.

FullWings
17th Jan 2013, 08:16
Well it seems it is a non-issue for Boeing because they took into account a possible battery fire and say the airplane can stay aloft with a full-blown battery fire. presumably for the full ETOPS time frame.
I'd be very surprised if that was the case. The electrical and chemical energy stored in one of those battery packs is significant. (24V/65Ah was being quoted for the APU?) Normal hold fire suppressant (halon) would be effective against flames coming out of a pack, while the concentration was high enough, but would do very little to stop what's going on internally. That's why the advice for a lithium battery fire is halon first, then lots of water to quench it - I don't think the 787 has water sprinklers in the hold. :uhoh:

Just one AA cell that goes bad can be quite spectacular - a pack equivalent to a stack of car batteries...? :eek: It took a team of professional fire-fighters 40mins to put the 787 in Boston out and that was on the ground with specialist equipment.

airsmiles
17th Jan 2013, 08:23
I'm with Lemain and his comments ring true. Both Airbus and Boeing are producing ever complex aircraft stuffed with new technology.

Malfunctioning pitot tubes, wing rib cracks, battery problems, fuel leaks etc. are all bad for aviation's image. Worse, the flight crew can't just fly by feel now as they have to interpret these malfunctions and diagnose the computer output in very little time.

BRE
17th Jan 2013, 08:58
If only 24 V / 64 Ah, then the also quoted weight of 70 lbs. does not seem to be all that great.

My 12 V / 85 Ah lead acid car battery weighs less than 20 kg.

robdean
17th Jan 2013, 09:44
A rich seam of battery chemistry information:

Basic to Advanced Battery Information from Battery University (http://batteryuniversity.com/)

deptrai
17th Jan 2013, 09:44
One would hope that these are not lithium cobalt oxide cells.......

(edit: It seems Boeing may have changed to lithium manganese in 2008. The following original post is probably outdated information) They are. The battery cells in question have Lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) cathodes. Around 10 years ago - when the 787 design process started - that was the only material available. The Supplier, GS Yuasa, was awarded the contract in 2005 (by Thales, who did the system integration).
Here's the spec sheet: http://www.s399157097.onlinehome.us/SpecSheets/LVP10-65.pdf

And yes, newer lithium-based chemistries have more desirable thermal properties in a runaway condition (click to enlarge):

http://s9.postimage.org/xy32u0ksb/lico.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/xy32u0ksb/)

Ye Olde Pilot
17th Jan 2013, 09:49
The battery company said the unit was "discoloured".http://www.nycaviation.com/newspage/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/jal-apu-battery-ntsb-2-1260-602x401.jpg

Evey_Hammond
17th Jan 2013, 09:52
BBC Breaking News have just confirmed that Quatar Airways have grounded their 787's too. Such a shame, went to Heathrow to watch one take off recently and it was an impressive sight :{

Bralo20
17th Jan 2013, 09:58
787's are now officially grounded by:

FAA (USA)
JAA (Japan)
EASA (Europe)
DGAC (India)
DGCA (Chili)

I'm pretty sure the ECAA (Ethiopia) and the CAA (Qatar) will follow soon.

Deep and fast
17th Jan 2013, 10:05
Well it seems it is a non-issue for Boeing because they took into account a possible battery fire and say the airplane can stay aloft with a full-blown battery fire.

Perhaps it just burns a hole in the airframe and falls out. Problem solved.

:E

D and F :8

Sober Lark
17th Jan 2013, 10:08
After their emergency loan to keep it running, grounding is more than LOT needs at the moment.

Lemain
17th Jan 2013, 10:08
All batteries are dangerous, not just lithium. Ten years ago I bought a yacht that had two very large 180Ah 12V sealed lead acids made in Germany by Sonnenschein. The dog's balls of batteries. They were only around six months old and one night, motor-sailing I noticed what seemed like a high persistent charge into the batts. 8A or something, I think, but constant and wasn't falling back, indeed, it seemed to be rising. The batteries were in the engine room and when I investigated one of them was HOT - 80C from my infra red thermometer. I disconnected the hot one, and all was well. Easy at sea level; not so easy at FL300. The cause, I am 99% sure, was the (Japanese, Hitachi) alternator that was producing 15.5V constant --- incredibly that was in-spec for the alternator :eek: Now I only use unsealed flooded lead acid batts. Mind you, fine at sea-level (though not all would agree) but certainly not from choice in an aircraft, especially a metal one. Hey, did someone say the Dreamliner is made of plastic? :) FLA would be fine unless they try to fly inverted.

TURIN
17th Jan 2013, 10:11
The batteries in question have Lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) cathodes. Around 10 years ago - when the 787 was being designed - that was the only material available.


My B787 training notes say they are Lithium Manganese.
Could be wrong I suppose.

deptrai
17th Jan 2013, 10:13
No, it's very likely that you are right :) I may have been quoting outdated information, sorry. It seems that Boeing may have changed to manganese in 2008 from the original design:

Boeing looks to boost 787 lithium ion battery service life (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-looks-to-boost-787-lithium-ion-battery-service-life-224663/)

LindbergB767
17th Jan 2013, 10:19
It Would be interesting to know how many lithium battery burned with the Tesla car
and what kind of system they use to cool them as well as charge them
I have difficulty to understand that after so many test On the B787 they have now so much problem
Is the problem is the battery or the charging system or both???

TURIN
17th Jan 2013, 10:24
deptrai
Me? Right?

Well that's a first. :ok:

LindburghB767
There is a another 787 thread running that has a photo of the Tesla car and (i think) it has a liquid refridgerant cooling system.

Phalanger
17th Jan 2013, 11:13
The battery company said the unit was "discoloured".
That was the JAL not ANA battery.

ZeroThreeLeft
17th Jan 2013, 11:18
Yep, just saw a post from QA stating -

"QATAR AIRWAYS STATEMENT ON BOEING 787s

Following instructions by both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States and Qatars Civil Aviation Authority, Qatar Airways is implementing the Airworthiness Directive issued by the FAA for all operators of the Boeing 787 to ground the aircraft, effective today 17 January 2013.

Qatar Airways Chief Executive Officer Akbar Al Baker said: I previously stated that Qatar Airways will only stop operating our Dreamliners if we receive such an instruction from regulators.

Safety remains the number one priority for Qatar Airways. We ensure all our aircraft meet the most stringent safety standards and this will not be compromised in any way.

In light of recent events surrounding the Boeing 787 Dreamliner worldwide, we are actively working with Boeing and the regulators to restore full customer confidence in the 787.

Qatar Airways will resume 787 operations when we are clear that the aircraft meets the full requirements of the Airworthiness Directive and our standards which assure the safety of our passengers and crew at all times.

So we are not flying the aircraft until and only such a time this is achieved.

Qatar Airways would like to express our sincere apologies to passengers booked on our 787 flights, but we are sure they will understand our concerns in view of recent events with other 787 operators around the world.

Our staff are assisting all affected passengers to be accommodated on other flights to get them to their final destination with minimum inconvenience.

Qatar Airways currently has five Boeing 787-8 aircraft in its fleet.":D



Quite a shame though. I went to Doha International last week to take some pics of the New B788. Quite a sight.



Even better,


I am traveling to South Africa Next week from Doha and did not book QA, but Ethiopian Airlines to try the new Boeing... :\


Guess getting to SA in one piece is more important!

80-87
17th Jan 2013, 11:31
QCAA also grounded the aircraft.

derbyshire
17th Jan 2013, 11:42
Here's one Britisher who is old enough to remember DH Comets falling out of the sky, so let's have no gloating folks.
Boeing and Airbus make fine aircraft (even if FBW) but are both under irresistable pressure to push them into service prematurely.
Meanwhile, I shall continue to choose the 747 across the pond - 4 engines!

greenspinner
17th Jan 2013, 11:45
Don't thrust QUATARY, they are just ephemeral. They were not existing 30 years ago, and they will disappear in ten years. They don't have to blame nor complaint about nothing in the aviation business as I far as I know they never create nothing... hoppefully no battery.

lasernigel
17th Jan 2013, 11:56
I don't think it has been pointed out, but the power distribution and charging circuits seem to be made by Thales:

A company who are making a right cock up with the Manchester Metro system. If we can't trust the workmanship on tram tracks, would rather not try it out at 38,000 ft!

Walnut
17th Jan 2013, 12:21
Has anyone considered that all the recent problems are related? Obviously all are focusing on the battery fires, but is this a battery fault or a charge/discharge problem.? The brakes are electrically operated. the fuel valves are electrically operated, and the usual cause of failure in a/c windscreens is a failure of the electrical heating circuits??
So could there be a connection, electrical surges maybe?

Coopz67
17th Jan 2013, 12:25
Nice of the Beeb to clear that one up for us :ugh:

http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a473/Brian_Shepherd/jet_zpse72d294b.jpg

aterpster
17th Jan 2013, 13:02
http://tinyurl.com/b35cgzz (http://tinyurl.com/b35cgzz)

AOB9
17th Jan 2013, 13:14
I've done a lot of searching here and elsewhere but can't find a direct answer to my query. I understand ( from media sources) that the Dreamliner relies more heavily on battery power than other jets. This is because some hydraulic systems have been replaced with lighter electronic alternatives. I read on one media outlet that electronics have replaced hydraulic systems but this isn't correct as we know.

Am I correct in assuming that extra battery power is required to operate lesser hydraulic systems such as actuators etc????......and.......has Boeing cut out a substantial amount of weight by "upgrading" these systems?

Terego
17th Jan 2013, 13:18
I would be interested to know what battery chemistry is used in these batteries. Lithium based batteries vary hugely in their resistance to thermal runaway. For example Lithium ferro magnesium phosphate batteries are very much safer than the more conventional Li Ion batteries used in computers, at the expense of a slightly lower power density. This is illustrated by the following marketing video from a leading manufacturer. Interesting and sobering!

The Safety of Valence Lithium Phosphate (English) - YouTube

If you don't trust links posted by new posters, just google Valence. Ironically, these safer batteries are used in Segways, but you can't take these batteries on a plane because they are a Lithium based battery and we know how dangerous these are...

TURIN
17th Jan 2013, 13:28
No. The press as usual are talking through their backsides.

The batteries on a 787 do the same job as on any other airliner, the difference is that because the control systems (I do not mean flight control specifically) rely so heavily on electrical power that in the event of a total main power loss the battery will need to last a while and keep lots of computers running.

The flight contol surfaces are still powered by hydraulics in the usual way.

Spooky 2
17th Jan 2013, 13:39
Hell lets be done with it. Go to Sears and buy a couple of Die-Hard batteries and were back in service. :}

Lyman
17th Jan 2013, 13:50
The FAA did not ground this aircraft. JAL and ANA did. There were only six 787s in service in the FAA jurisdiction, and these were flying domestic routes.

The FAA is a short tail on a big dog.....

This was merely a new iteration of what has become an ad hoc engineering feat.

The self grounding airplane.

What a miracle, airplanes that tell us, non fatally, what is wrong. Faulty tubesheet on the TRENT 7? Cracked ribs on the 380? Bogus oil fittings? Misplaced tools? Engines that vomit nickel on taxi?

Fuel gush, rippling plastic, keystone cop evacs on the taxi way? Forty minute fuselage fires?

Toyota can turn gasoline into electricity millions of times an hour, worldwide, but Boeing has problems turning kerosene into sparky without starting fires?

And Boeing does not use the electrics for propulsion.

Not rocket science.


Amazing.

MagnusP
17th Jan 2013, 14:02
All are now grounded as Ethiopian have followed suit.

Heathrow Harry
17th Jan 2013, 16:03
won't help sales............

slf4life
17th Jan 2013, 16:25
I'm as commonly knowledgeable as pax get, and don't scare easy, but as it stands I do not trust the 787 to always intelligently 'ground itself' in an emergency. Plus, the emerging pattern is one of unpredictability - what other design/production issues remain and when will THEY arise?

I'm confident it'll be sorted out of course, for many varied reasons, some already mentioned it HAS to - in effect the 787 is 'too big to fail' :}

ECAM_Actions
17th Jan 2013, 16:27
Who's bright idea was it to use Lithium-anything as a main battery on-board an aircraft, given all the problems of just transporting the things as cargo?

TNT have this to say: TNT Express - Lithium Cells and Batteries (http://www.tnt.com/express/en_gb/site/home/support/paperwork_and_packaging/dangerous_goods/lithium_cells_batteries.html)

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

I guess the 787 is a flying dangerous goods?

Following several serious (fire) incidents during transport, the regulations for this product type were adjusted and the more stringent regulatory requirements were introduced in 2009.
...and in the 787 they are not only transporting them, but are connected to chargers and are in constant use!

Tom the Tenor
17th Jan 2013, 16:52
The Yanks should call in the Iran Air engineers to sort out the 787 problems.

Their inclusion would (i) fix the battery problems and (ii) keep the airframes flying for the next fifty years!

The Iran Air engineers know how to keep aeroplanes flying! :ok:

grebllaw123d
17th Jan 2013, 17:14
Quote from FAA statement:

Before further flight, operators of U.S.-registered, Boeing 787 aircraft must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the batteries are safe.

In view of all the many possibilities for very serious failures of the Lithium-ion battery type - as described in the other threads re the 787 problem, and highlighted in the 2 recent cases - I cannot see how it in any way will be possible to satisfactorily fulfill this requirement. At least not in the short term.

I think that BOEING as a relatively quick fix will have to go "back" to an earlier battery technology, and honestly what are the problems with that: higher cost, heavier weight, more space required, costly and time consuming modifications - too bad, but manageable items for a large company.

Tu.114
17th Jan 2013, 17:15
Another question. I do assume that also the 787 has the requirement to run at least 30 minutes on battery power, should all the generators drop offline. Now, seeing that a great number of systems that are pneumatically or hydraulically powered on other types run on electricity on the 787, I assume that the batteries need to provide not only power for the systems normally running on electricity, but on top also the cabin compressors and the anti-ice systems during the certified time - or will those systems (at least partially) fall victim to load shedding in such a situation? As these two systems tend to be fairly large consumers, I would assume that the batteries must either be immense or that there are some additional emergency batteries installed in the aircraft beside the 3 already mentioned ones?

stormin norman
17th Jan 2013, 17:27
Balpa guy on BBC this evening not exactly a calming influence

Ye Olde Pilot
17th Jan 2013, 17:28
This graphic says it all.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/17/article-2263126-16FFDFC2000005DC-28_634x459.jpg

ECAM_Actions
17th Jan 2013, 17:33
What *does* your graphic say? Only tells me that ANA and JAL operate just less than half the global fleet of 787s.

Lyman
17th Jan 2013, 17:43
Some of the power gained with the new architecture goes out the Fan as thrust. That is the seductive part of 'efficiency'. Moving numbers around on paper to accomplish 'savings' means an energy audit is a requirement. You cannot 'audit' your way into remarkable efficiency, and call it revolutionary. Neither can you cart around power in batteries "in Case".

Systemic. The Battery is a symptom.....

glad rag
17th Jan 2013, 17:47
@ Terego (http://www.pprune.org/members/404541-terego)

And I thought the old Kapton [R] videos were scary......:mad:

Ye Olde Pilot
17th Jan 2013, 17:48
The graphic shows all of Boeing's 50 flagship 787 Dreamliners grounded resulting in shares in Boeing have fallen by 6.3 per cent over the last two days.
An estimated $2.7 billion has been wiped off the company's stock market value. Some airlines ( Qatar ) are already demanding some of their money back.

Grounding aircraft on this scale over safety concerns is rare. The last time this happened was in 1979, when DC-10s were grounded following a fatal crash.

The big problem for Boeing is restoring public confidence in the Dreamliner.

Lyman
17th Jan 2013, 17:54
I think the big problem for Boeing is re-establishing confidence in Boeing.

PEI_3721
17th Jan 2013, 17:56
The battery problem could be of greater significance if it is related to a very serious flight test event.
Boeing had time and opportunity to investigate and rectify the flight test fault, thus if the current problems are similar this might suggest that either the fix doesnt work or that the original problem was not sufficiently understood. Neither of which inspire the much needed confidence, nor aid any forecast for a quick resolution, particularly as there was a significant delay in the flight test programme due to the electrical fire.

ECAM_Actions
17th Jan 2013, 18:00
I think the big problem for Boeing is re-establishing confidence in Boeing.+1

Only last week I was commenting how cool Boeing and the FAA were after the first 3 incidents in a week (APU fire, fuel spillage and brake problems). They shrugged it off and called it "new airplane (sic) problems" and said the aircraft was "safe" and no investigations were required.

If I were Boeing I'd be examining each incident in detail as none of them were what I'd call "minor" problems, and the proximity of each was becoming farcical.

ECAM_Actions
17th Jan 2013, 18:04
Before I forget... wasn't the APU fire also battery related? Was it too a Li-Ion?

asc12
17th Jan 2013, 18:12
I would be interested to know what battery chemistry is used in these batteries.

It appears both the main and apu batteries are Lithium Manganese.

TURIN
17th Jan 2013, 18:14
There was no APU fire.

There was a fire (o/heat?) in the APU battery. It is identical to the main aircraft battery.

Rananim
17th Jan 2013, 18:14
This decision to outsource so much of the plane(and design!) has clearly backfired.Somebody very high up took a big risk and it hasnt worked.Cheap labor deals overseas or trying to outmaneuver home unions isnt excuse enough for risky uncalculated outsourcing.Product quality is key.Your entire reputation rests with the product.Publicity now is horrendous even if the actual problem turns out to be a storm in a teacup.The solid simple rugged reliability and friendly pilot interface has always been their selling-point.Remove that trump card and theyll never claw back any ground from the brave new world in Toulouse.As a pilot,I think thats an unfortunate turn of events.Far too much confidence is placed in engineering excellence of the FAR EAST.I dont buy it.Japs are over-rated and dont even get me started on the Koreans and Chinese who blatantly copy and steal patents.You want to outsource engineering parts that are safety critical?Try the Germans.

asc12
17th Jan 2013, 18:20
This decision to outsource so much of the plane(and design!) has clearly backfired... etc.

It has clearly not.

If you wrote this post from a computer of some sort, you're using technology built largely outside the USA. Just because it was built elsewhere hardly means it was a bad decision. Obviously bad decisions were made, but it's not necessarily true, at all, that these Japanese batteries are themselves at fault.

The xenophobia is disturbing, and hypocritical.

TURIN
17th Jan 2013, 18:21
I suggest you have a look at the 787 build history. Particularly the reasons why Boeing brought the Section 48 in-house by buying Vought.
Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aVShtocbHO4E)

The structures built by Japanese companies is superb in comparison.

Ye Olde Pilot
17th Jan 2013, 18:42
Let's face it the 787 Dreamliner programme began as a response to the A380 and Boeing have come unstuck. They've also been hit by a reduction in US military spending.

They skimped on the R and D and the birds are coming home to roost.

Boeing also made a fortune out of the 747/737 line and never thought Airbus
could be a real challenge.

stephenkeane
17th Jan 2013, 19:11
Technology has to be pushed to the limits. Airlines want less weight, so they use less fuel, therefore reduce costs. Manufacturers Airbus and Boeing strive and compete with each other to achieve this. Pushing the boundaries results in problems, so both the 380 and 787 have come across snags. They will throw money at the problem until they get it sorted. Pushing the boundaries, can mean taking risks. So far no disasters, I'm sure they will get it right in the end.

FullWings
17th Jan 2013, 19:35
Airlines want less weight, so they use less fuel, therefore reduce costs. Manufacturers Airbus and Boeing strive and compete with each other to achieve this. Pushing the boundaries results in problems, so both the 380 and 787 have come across snags.
So true. Also true (certainly when they go into service with us) is that they will be carrying tonnes of duty-free goods that don't get sold, magazines that don't get read, bottles of wine/spirits that don't get drunk, etc. The overall weight saving between using off-the-shelf tech like NiMH vs. Li-ion with extra fire precautions must be pretty small in relation to the eventual usage pattern of the aircraft but has grounded it indefinitely.

I think most airlines prefer a slightly heavier aircraft that they can fly, rather than one that sits on the ground looking pretty...

Dannyboy39
17th Jan 2013, 19:41
This decision to outsource so much of the plane(and design!) has clearly backfired.

Total rubbish. How much of the A380 for example is manufactured in France for example? How much of ANY form of transportation is manufactured in one place/country? Nothing.

Christodoulidesd
17th Jan 2013, 19:52
So, the dream went pretty much down the toiler, right? ;)

ALT ACQ
17th Jan 2013, 20:12
The 24 hrs news channels have a role to play in all of this . Most new aircrafts have almost always had teething issues . Remember the A320 test flight or the fuels pumps on the B 737 ngs .
I am sure there were teething problems especially related to introduction of new technologies in the bygone years E.g 747 or A300 ( maybe someone could point out a few , was still in diapers at the time ) , Only it did not make to CNN or BBC within 15 mins of an event happening.

Regulators / Airlines sometimes want act to events based on the level of media coverage to an incident as they want to be seen as proactive and not asleep on the job . In the era of 24 hrs news channels one bad move even though small can have large ramifications as perception more important than reality .
Boeing I am sure will find solutions like Airbus has done with the 380 , but only time will tell is the damage lasting or temporary ?

sb_sfo
17th Jan 2013, 20:14
One Japanese carrier has cancelled all their 787 flights through the 26th. My feeling is that this may be a longer-term action. Put me down for 3 weeks.

Lyman
17th Jan 2013, 20:20
It will be up to the customer at this point.... No one trusts the FAA, they have demanded a squishy compliance, and Boeing won't risk a soft date, and see the planes remain on the ground.

I think pilots are being asked their pov.....Once burned, twice shy....

Twice burned, pound sand.

Ye Olde Pilot
17th Jan 2013, 20:25
Knowing the way these organisations work I'll go for 5 weeks.

Shore Guy
17th Jan 2013, 20:36
For you EE types.....

I certainly appears that Lithium batteries are not ready for prime time in aircraft usage.

One of the possible alternative is to replace them with NiCads.

How much larger/heavier would a NiCad battery have to be to replace the power available from the existing Lithium batteries?

Would the charging/monitoring software have to be modified greatly to accommodate NiCads?

fdr
17th Jan 2013, 21:01
won't help sales............H2

Le bus probably will dispute that premise.:)

The current problem is interesting as it has had a cluster in service that was not "apparently" evident during the flight test program, assuming the rear E/E fire in the test program was wiring related, not initiated by battery characteristics. Would be worth a review of that event to see if group think occurred in the FTA.

Boeing is pretty good at building planes when they get around to it... there is a lot of resources being allocated by all reports, and at the end of the day, there are alternatives for the case of just battery issues. For more in depth issues if identified, then system redesign is far more problematic, not necessarily going for the B763/GENX alternative... but there be dragons if the problems extend beyond the battery issues alone.

slides work... that is nice to get out of the way.

The buyers may be vocal and miffed with TBC, (A A-B etc) but in the end they profit from the current duopoly that exists, being able to play US vs EU for better deals. The fare payers have short memories, most times the attention span of the SLF does not extend to the pre departure safety briefing that is there for their well being, an example of the global ADHD pandemic that exists in todays twitter/facebook/TXT instant gratification world.

If OEM behaviour was seriously considered by the global masses, then TBC would already be in deep doo doo over the scandalous handling by the OEM and the regulator of the B737NG ringframes and the manufacturers disgraceful treatment of the QA inspectors that identified this gross breach of compliance to the TCDS by the outsource entity. That the FAA has failed to ground the B73NG's impacted by what can only be characterised as bogus parts that do not comply to the production drawings impacts the good standing of this agency. The position where the airlines and their NAA's take action on airworthiness that the OEM's NAA is reticent to undertake should be setting off alarm bells on the "state of the union..."

quadradar
17th Jan 2013, 21:04
"The battery problem could be of greater significance if it is related to a very serious flight test event.
Boeing had time and opportunity to investigate and rectify the flight test fault, thus if the current problems are similar this might suggest that either the fix doesnt work or that the original problem was not sufficiently understood. Neither of which inspire the much needed confidence, nor aid any forecast for a quick resolution, particularly as there was a significant delay in the flight test programme due to the electrical fire."

PEI_3721 has hit the nail on the head - this went through my mind immediately also :(

sgs233a
17th Jan 2013, 21:27
H2

Le bus probably will dispute that premise.:)

The current problem is interesting as it has had a cluster in service that was not "apparently" evident during the flight test program, assuming the rear E/E fire in the test program was wiring related, not initiated by battery characteristics. Would be worth a review of that event to see if group think occurred in the FTA.


Interesting article posted earlier, seems to be saying that the specific type of Li-Ion batteries fitted to customer delivered aircraft differed from those originally fitted to test/certification aircraft:
Boeing looks to boost 787 lithium ion battery service life (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-looks-to-boost-787-lithium-ion-battery-service-life-224663/)

Excerpt from above link:

"Boeing has not determined which 787 will be the first to receive the new battery modifications, although multiple programme sources have told Flight's FlightBlogger affiliate that the new battery could be introduced as early as Airplane Seven, the first production 787 scheduled for delivery to All Nippon Airways in the third quarter of 2009."

Terego
17th Jan 2013, 21:27
@asc12

Thanks on the battery chemistry. For those that might be interested here is a link from 'Battery University' comparing the different available Lithium battery chemistries:
Types of Lithium-ion Batteries (http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion)

It seems that the chosen type is one of the safer ones but maybe not safe enough or they haven't really thought out the operational envelope.

Maybe they should be ejectable like the reactor cores on the Starship Enterprise

Lemain
17th Jan 2013, 21:41
Everyone in the industry whether designer, manufacturer, operator, pilot or engineer (the list should read t'other way round in my book) knows that batteries are trouble. Chemicals in packages made as light as possible. How many of you remember having to call for the 'tolley-acc' to start the first engine because the a/c batteries were too low on a cold morning? How many of you remember waking in the mornings to the sound of cranking car engines cranked by blithering idiots who only succeeded in waking those of us who wanted or needed to sleep in? I don't remember for sure when I last had a flat battery in an aircraft, boat or car. We take the new reliability for granted.

However, the improvement has come bundled with risk. For the most part the problems are below the pilot, press and passenger radar. The 787 problems are different. They are real, they are documented, I sincerely hope they are not malicious (it'll bite the other side) and they are concerning.

This aircraft is in danger of getting a bad name, like the DC10. We mustn't let that happen if we can help it. It will harm the entire industry. Can someone with connections in both commercial camps get their engineers together to help sort this problem NOW with words of support from Airbus.

archae86
17th Jan 2013, 22:59
As of now, the A350 also uses serious Lithium Ion batteries. Their vendor differs (SAFT (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/airbus-selects-saft-lithium-ion-battery-systems-to-equip-a350-xwb-56906867.html), not GS Yuasa).

A few hours ago Airbus CEO Fabrice Bregier (http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-components/news/airbus-ceo-no-reason-change-a350-electric-architecture-0117) said he saw no reason to change "the A350's architecture", apparently meaning not only the use of lithium ion batteries but the charging, safety, power distribution, and other related schemes.

Good luck to them.

keesje
17th Jan 2013, 23:13
Maybe re-engining the A330 into a NEO isn't such a bad idea after all.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/A330NewEngine.jpg

Lemain
17th Jan 2013, 23:20
A few hours ago Airbus CEO Fabrice Bregier (http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-components/news/airbus-ceo-no-reason-change-a350-electric-architecture-0117) said he saw no reason to change "the A350's architecture", apparently meaning not only the use of lithium ion batteries but the charging, safety, power distribution, and other related schemes.But then there haven't (I think?) been even insider rumours that Airbus have a problem? So why would they change the design? The cost would be to the moon...engineering, trials, certifications, spares,.... So why have we a problem with Boeing? Is it the charging system? The rating (Ah vs service duty and average amps in amps out)? Is it located in a bad spot? Surely not, as one ?engineer suggested earlier here a liquid cooling system for a tiddly little APU battery :eek:

Seems to me that we need to combine every professional in the business to help sort this problem and reassure the public and press. Press and public, more like.

If the 787 fails to meet market approval the consequences on aviation will be deep and bloody. It'll also open the door to the east. I'd rather keep the EU and US duopoly going.

archae86
17th Jan 2013, 23:48
So why would they change the design?

Some (many) posting here have the clear position that no aviation use of Lithium ion batteries is either safe or acceptable.

Those holding that position would not approve of the current Airbus stance.

I, personally, think it is possible to do it right--but don't know whether it, in fact, has been done right. By the way, my background is design engineering--and I am not a pilot.

RR_NDB
18th Jan 2013, 03:04
sb_sfo:

My feeling is that this may be a longer-term action. (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-5.html#post7639140)
A lot of issues to consider:

1) What caused BOS incident? Suppose was the charger and battery associated circuitry (best case scenario)
2) What caused TAK incident? Suppose was the charger and battery associated circuitry (best case scenario)
3) What is wrong with these parts? The Engineering team probably yet know. (best case scenario)
4) What if nothing with these parts? In this case the batteries could be the factor. What to do? (IMO this is the worst case scenario)
5) Options? a) The charger and circuitry for NiCd batteries are DIFFERENT
b) The battery (for the same AH rating is bigger and heavier) has not a direct replacement. So, :E
6) FAA review
7) Pressure to return ops. (from many players)
8) Risks of further damage to images in a precipitated decision before safety is guaranteed.

To be continued.

How long? In the best case scenario, week(s). In the worst case, month(s). :{

(This is a risky comment) Your feeling is the same i have. BIG ISSUE.

PS

Just an analogy: If it was needed to replace the batteries of my mobiles and laptops the new volume and new weight would be at least twice. :mad:

RR_NDB
18th Jan 2013, 03:40
Shore Guy:

How much larger/heavier would a NiCad battery have to be to replace the power available from the existing Lithium batteries? (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-5.html#post7639205)

Larger and heavier enough to require a mod to the plane. Will quantify ASAP.

Would the charging/monitoring software have to be modified greatly to accommodate NiCads?

It would require a redesign of the circuitry (i.e. not just SW). Ive heard of a Diode (in series). With NiCds i never heard of that.

So, quite a big deal. The 787 design REQUIRED these batteries. Its specs mandated. The worst case scenario would be to retrofit to another battery
type. I hope they trace the problems to the charger or associated circuitry.

RR_NDB
18th Jan 2013, 04:39
glad rag:

And I thought the old Kapton [R] videos were scary (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-4.html#post7638845)
Indeed, Kapton was a big problem. A battery with this concerns remember us on the Kapton nightmare. At least is easier to replace than to change the A/C harness. :}

RR_NDB
18th Jan 2013, 04:52
PEI_3721:

...this might suggest that either the fix doesnt work or that the original problem was not sufficiently understood.

(http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-4.html#post7638872)

Lets hope such is not the case. If so, i have no words to comment. Just :{

ozaub
18th Jan 2013, 05:02
The incidents that led to the grounding of the B787 look suspiciously like the potential dangers of adopting L/I batteries that were spelt out by FAA in Special Certification Conditions at Federal Register, Volume 72 Issue 196 (Thursday, October 11, 2007) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-10-11/html/E7-19980.htm)

Namely:
In lieu of the requirements of 14 CFR 25.1353(c)(1) through (c)(4),
the following special conditions apply. Lithium ion batteries on the
Boeing Model 787-8 airplane must be designed and installed as follows:
(1) Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained during
any foreseeable charging or discharging condition and during any
failure of the charging or battery monitoring system not shown to be
extremely remote. The lithium ion battery installation must preclude
explosion in the event of those failures.
(2) Design of the lithium ion batteries must preclude the
occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature or
pressure.
(3) No explosive or toxic gases emitted by any lithium ion battery
in normal operation, or as the result of any failure of the battery
charging system, monitoring system, or battery installation not shown
to be extremely remote, may accumulate in hazardous quantities within
the airplane.
(4) Installations of lithium ion batteries must meet the
requirements of 14 CFR 25.863(a) through (d).
(5) No corrosive fluids or gases that may escape from any lithium
ion battery may damage surrounding structure or any adjacent systems,
equipment, or electrical wiring of the airplane in such a way as to
cause a major or more severe failure condition, in accordance with 14
CFR 25.1309(b) and applicable regulatory guidance.
(6) Each lithium ion battery installation must have provisions to
prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential systems caused
by the maximum amount of heat the battery can generate during a short
circuit of the battery or of its individual cells.
(7) Lithium ion battery installations must have a system to control
the charging rate of the battery automatically, so as to prevent
battery overheating or overcharging, and,
(i) A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning
system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from
its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition, or,
(ii) A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means for
automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the
event of battery failure.
(8) Any lithium ion battery installation whose function is required
for safe operation of the airplane must incorporate a monitoring and
warning feature that will provide an indication to the appropriate
flight crewmembers whenever the state-of-charge of the batteries has
fallen below levels considered acceptable for dispatch of the airplane.
(9) The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness required by 14 CFR
25.1529 must contain maintenance requirements for measurements of
battery capacity at appropriate intervals to ensure that batteries
whose function is required for safe operation of the airplane will
perform their intended function as long as the battery is installed in
the airplane. The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness must also
contain procedures for the maintenance of lithium ion batteries in
spares storage to prevent the replacement of batteries whose function
is required for safe operation of the airplane with batteries that have
experienced degraded charge retention ability or other damage due to
prolonged storage at a low state of charge.

Evidently Boeing failed to meet these special conditions and FAA failed to detect the failure

RR_NDB
18th Jan 2013, 05:18
TURIN:

...Tesla car and (i think) it has a liquid refridgerant cooling system. (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-3.html#post7637993)

Tesla car used smaller cells in large numbers. (Thousands) (http://www.teslamotors.com/it_IT/forum/forums/model-s-going-use-new-version-panasonic-18650-series-battery)

Different approach, (to put cells inside liquid) Sounds good.

But there are problems. (http://jalopnik.com/5887265/tesla-motors-devastating-design-problem) :sad:

sb_sfo
18th Jan 2013, 05:36
Had a chance to talk to a guy from Tesla, and he was saying that they were working on a system to totally recharge in 30 minutes. I recall he threw out the figure of 400 amps to do it. While his job was picking up the bodies when they were shipped into SFO and he didn't strike me as an engineer, that figure scared the crap out of me. I think I'd want to be motoring down the road at full speed after a charge like that just to get some airflow across the cells!

RR_NDB
18th Jan 2013, 06:01
sb_sfo:

I think I'd want to be motoring down the road at full speed after a charge like that just to get some airflow across the cells!
(http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-6.html#post7639887)
:mad:

Net result: ScareDesign :E

LiveryMan
18th Jan 2013, 06:37
Let's face it the 787 Dreamliner programme began as a response to the A380 and Boeing have come unstuck. They've also been hit by a reduction in US military spending.

They skimped on the R and D and the birds are coming home to roost.

Boeing also made a fortune out of the 747/737 line and never thought Airbus
could be a real challenge.

Let's face it, you are talking out of your rear end. :mad:

The 787 and A380 are completely different aircraft for completely different markets and are constructed with completely different methods. The only similarity they share is the fact they are aircraft.

The 787 is a natural replacement for the large worldwide fleet of 767s and older A330s. Boeing have long foreseen a point to point system being gradually preferred over hub to hub. Airbus bet the bank on Hub to Hub remaining dominant and required huge fleets of A380s to make it work without the need for more slots.

Boeing has publicly stated on many occasions that they do not see a large enough market to warrant a 1 to 1 competitor to the A380 (in line with their point to point philosophy) So far, they have been proven right.
The 747-8 could be seen as a "reaction" to the A380. But then, the Freighter was launched and introduced first for a reason. How many A380Fs are on order?

But we digress from the topic here.

If the only reason the 787 has been grounded is over issues with the batteries, won't this be a relatively easy fix?

LiveryMan
18th Jan 2013, 06:40
Maybe re-engining the A330 into a NEO isn't such a bad idea after all.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/A330NewEngine.jpg

Go back to Airliners.net keesje. Or are you still banned for your blatant flamebaiting?

DaveReidUK
18th Jan 2013, 06:54
The 787 design REQUIRED these batteries.

Strange statement.

Presumably you mean that the 787 design specified these batteries, for commercial and/or engineering reasons. There certainly was/is no regulatory or safety-related requirement to use them, as will be demonstrated when the electrical system is redesigned to replace them with a different technology.

Innaflap
18th Jan 2013, 07:38
It seems this particular battery chemistry is known to have ignition problems.

Grounded Boeing 787 Dreamliners Use Batteries Prone to Overheating | MIT Technology Review (http://www.technologyreview.com/news/509981/grounded-boeing-787-dreamliners-use-batteries-prone-to-overheating/)

Golf-Sierra
18th Jan 2013, 09:03
The incidents that led to the grounding of the B787 look suspiciously like the potential dangers of adopting L/I batteries that were spelt out by FAA in Special Certification Conditions at Federal Register, Volume 72 Issue 196 (Thursday, October 11, 2007)

...

And in addition to all that the batteries are meant to solely power the aircraft in the event of a total failure of all other electrical sources - which does happen now and again, even on a four (not two) engine 747.

Not sure I want to see all those protections kicking in when the plane is just a few miles short of the threshold in an emergency situation. Or when the APU needs to be started up in the air.

Did the engineers foresee such circumstances?

Lemain
18th Jan 2013, 09:38
It seems this particular battery chemistry is known to have ignition problems.Is there a battery technology that is risk-free? You have two risks. Chemicals (or gasses in fault conditions) when the case is compromised (heat, mechanical or pressure-relief valve). Heat, if the charger is over-delivering to a charged battery or if the battery is discharged too fast. One would prefer not to have batteries. It is do-able with fuel cells or micro APUs running, say, on ethanol. I don't mean run the existing APUs off ethanol, but replace the APU's service battery by a fuel cell or baby motor. It's all interesting from a technical pov and speculation, but the time needed to incorporate the technology into a civilian airliner is ten years. Would be faster in wartime. Six months.

shonandai
18th Jan 2013, 11:06
http://http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/zoom/20130118-OYT9I01117.htm

nerd317
18th Jan 2013, 11:11
And in addition to all that the batteries are meant to solely power the aircraft in the event of a total failure of all other electrical sources - which does happen now and again, even on a four (not two) engine 747.

Not sure I want to see all those protections kicking in when the plane is just a few miles short of the threshold in an emergency situation. Or when the APU needs to be started up in the air.That seems a valid concern given some 'solutions' seem to only be concerned with managing the fire rather than any effect caused by the failure of the battery.

Overall, it seems to be a fairly well understood problem in a discrete component of the plane. It's not like "wing failure" or a wiring problem with 8000 miles of cables. It's serious in terms of individual aircraft and the current fleet, but maybe not serious in terms of the future of the dreamliner project.

SaturnV
18th Jan 2013, 11:44
New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/business/inside-the-787-an-unsettling-risk-for-boeing.html?hp

with this opinion:
Still, safeguards for lithium-ion batteries have progressed to the point that a fire on an airplane should never have happened, said Sanjeev Mukerjee, a chemistry professor at Northeastern University and an expert on batteries.

If a battery of that size catches fire, then a whole bunch of mechanisms didnt work, Mr. Mukerjee said. Whoever is making that battery is doing a really bad job.

matthewsjl
18th Jan 2013, 13:31
I'm familiar with the FAA AD process and have read the AD.

Suppose there is a re-design or different parts that the FAA deem to correct the AD condition and allowing the aircraft to fly again. What happens to the ETOPS certification? Is extra proving needed before ETOPs (at the intended level) is re-established?

SevenSeas
18th Jan 2013, 13:45
Too much "Electrickery" methinks - should have stuck with a box of double A's !:ok:

Lyman
18th Jan 2013, 13:54
mathewsjl...

This from Machinbird...

"As a betting man, I'll bet that the issue with the battery is actually with the charging system and insufficient feedback from the battery to the charging system regarding cell temperature. The charging system should not continue to charge a battery that is moving in the direction of thermal runaway."

I have read the special consideration re: LithIon issued to the 787 program by FAA. Other than failing almost all of them, utterly, in the emergencies, I did not notice a restriction in re: charging of a discharged system, LiIon.

This would be the salient issue, no?

The 787 is a very fresh and different approach to power/energy systems in commercial widebody. It is truly an electric jet.

More than ten years ago, I was involved in fireproofing a security system. The solution was weighty, but performed to spec. Lightweight ceramic and even lightweight concrete (sic) have been available for decades. The photo of the burnt and uncontained contents of the APU battery show a unit that has performed well, except at the top. It is difficult to imagine that a solution for the safe retention of the utility of such a high performing system cannot be supplied.

What is disconcerting is the thin limits that are exposed relative to weight saving in the E/E Bay. The a/c itself is amazing in its approach to efficiencies. A little cautious application of insulation and monitoring might (might) have saved the issue from reaching the state it did....

The electrical system itself cannot be re-engineered, without different engines and miles of 'plumbing'....

RR_NDB
18th Jan 2013, 16:39
Lemain:

:ok:

...micro APUs running, say, on ethanol. I don't mean run the existing APUs off ethanol, but replace the APU's service battery by a fuel cell or baby motor. It's all interesting from a technical pov and speculation, but the time needed to incorporate the technology into a civilian airliner is ten years.

I use a baby motor of 24 VDC 300W, motor generator in a motor home and in an electrical bike.

The time to incorporate it (Av) can be much less.

Seems to me that we need to combine every professional in the business to help sort this problem and reassure the public and press. Press and public, more like.

If the 787 fails to meet market approval the consequences on aviation will be deep and bloody. It'll also open the door to the east. I'd rather keep the EU and US duopoly going.

Important moment.

Rgds,

RR_NDB
18th Jan 2013, 16:47
archae86:

Good luck to them. (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-6.html#post7639495)

They will need...:}

ISS will be "upgraded" by same japanese supplier

:E

RR_NDB
18th Jan 2013, 17:03
Pointing to a less damaging scenario (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/504572-another-787-electrical-smoke-incident-ground-13.html#post7641110)

Speed of Sound
18th Jan 2013, 17:56
Presumably you mean that the 787 design specified these batteries

No I think he meant what he said which was that the design REQUIRED these batteries.

When the electrical system had been designed (requiring something like 1 MW of power!) the high energy density provided by use of Li-Ion technology was the only system which could provide such power at a reasonable size and weight.

A fait accompli in other words!

That is why this is not as simple a fix as some are trying to portray it. If the system can't be operated safely then either the batteries and charging system will need replacing for something a lot heavier and safer, or the electrical requirements of the model will need reducing. Either of those options is a headache and will take time. Ironically what they can take comfort from is that Airbus are running a similar system (albeit on a smaller scale) which seems to be stable.

As I said on the other thread, the best that Boeing can hope for is that this turns out to be a couple of dud cells in the two batteries which slipped passed quality control at Yuasa. ;-)

Lyman
18th Jan 2013, 18:01
But does the A350 have the reliance on electric generation that the 787 Has?

SOS

FLOAT? Can these batteries be safely charged whilst under load? They are supreme conductors, I have always used them in tandem, never charging one when also discharging it. In fact, the system was designed to isolate the battery being charged, its hookup prevented dual mode.

Taunusflyer
18th Jan 2013, 18:44
Dont blame the battery only. Also the surrounding circuits, charging management and software must be rechecked. And here we have the first sign, that it might not be the battery itself causing the failure. Seems that the battery was forced due to high voltage of the plane: Japan probe suspects excess voltage in 787 battery | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020162310_787japanbatteryxml.html)

Think this is good news, revalidate a fuzzy battery concept needs years. To fix the surrounding power architecture seems to have faster options. :ouch:

RR_NDB
18th Jan 2013, 23:23
Taunusflyer:

Think this is good news, (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-7.html#post7641313)

If confirmed probably will lead to the less damaging scenario to Boeing.

RR_NDB
18th Jan 2013, 23:47
DaveReidUK:

Strange statement. (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-6.html#post7639787)
Probably the 787 design team decided for this batteries for some reasons like:

Aircraft requirements (weight, etc.) related to design optimization

High capacity per weight and volume

Integrated (internal and external) circuitry

Advanced design (promising better performance)

If the information on over voltage (from charger) is correct we may expect a faster solution of the crisis.

PAXboy
19th Jan 2013, 00:17
Dannyboy39 quoting Rananim

Quote: This decision to outsource so much of the plane(and design!) has clearly backfired.

Total rubbish. How much of the A380 for example is manufactured in France for example? How much of ANY form of transportation is manufactured in one place/country? Nothing.
The difference is that Airbus started out with multiple suppliers many, many moons ago as a key part of their strategy. For Boeing this is all new territory and they are learning the hard way. Doubtless they will fix it and no one has died.

ALT ACQ pointed very sensibly that today's instant reporting and demand for ANYTHING to be said on the rolling news channel, just so that the channel can look like's up to date - is punishing countless companies and individuals all around the world and not just in aviation.

ozaub
19th Jan 2013, 01:33
In order to certificate the 787, Boeing had to prove compliance with all the Special Conditions for L/I batteries listed at#111. Doing so took years. Service incidents now show that the aircraft does NOT comply. FAA is not going to be so gullible from now on, so recertification is going to take a v.long time.

Romulus
19th Jan 2013, 01:40
The benefits of hindsight are amazing.

For instance you can't now argue that Boeing should have given the batteries an extra 100kg weight allowance because that would make very little performance difference for the simple reason that if you did that you'd have to allow every other manufactured component some extra weight as well - calls for heavier batteries are able to be made now because you have strong reasons to suspect a different but heavier battery type wouldn't have led to this issue.

Similarly with outsourcing. It is done all the time, presuming that proper quality accreditation was put in place for suppliers then it is standard commercial practice. If Boeing had to do everything in house they would probably be bankrupt due to all the extra staff they would have had to employ (on USA rates and conditions etc) and capital equipment spent on manufacturing machinery and other capital heavy startup items which would be more costly than having that load spread around the industry. You could argue they should have batteries in house, but only with hindsight.

And so it goes on.

The 787 will be a cracker airplane, no question about that. It's just a matter of being honest about issues and fixing them.

Cool Guys
19th Jan 2013, 03:36
"Can these batteries be safely charged whilst under load?"

A battery cannot be charged and discharged at the same time. It is either charging or discharging. Current out (discharge or load) minus current in (charge) = total current. Which ever is the highest wins. I think the question is: can the charging circuit operate at the same time as the battery is discharging. Sorry for the trivial interuption.

Peter643
19th Jan 2013, 03:58
If a battery can't be both charged and discharged, how can both my laptop and phone be on and under load when plugged in to charge and the battery still gets charged while the system is running?

Cool Guys
19th Jan 2013, 04:08
Try googling "Kirchoffs Current Law" This is the basic theory.

NWA SLF
19th Jan 2013, 05:36
Good grief, Li-Ion is almost ancient tech. Teething problems, yes. Sony built 10,000,000 batteries for computers that were recalled 5 years ago. Melted computers were all over the news (Sony supplied to makers like Dell in addition to their own). I wouldn't be typing on this iPad if not for Li-Ion, nor my 3 laptops nor 2 iPhones nor 4 cameras nor 2 drills. So it is not something new and untested. Do we blame the problem on Thales since they are he supplier and since they supplied the pitot tube on AF447 they can't be trusted? Is it a French conspiracy to take down Boeing? Since it was a Japanese subcontractor supplying to Thales that built the battery are they getting back for WWII and the a-bomb? Or is it that we engineers putting together our failure mode and effects analysis had an "I can't believe we missed that!" Moment? We engineers, being all too human, screw up. It's always been a fact of life - people do stupid things. Analyze, learn, resolve, implement, verify, and go on thankful nobody lost their life. Sometimes we are lucky - the engine explosion virtually destroying the A380 wing ended without loss of life by a miracle. Maybe the ANA pilot Thursday performed a similar miracle. Pilots saving our engineering asses. Thank you very much!

RR_NDB
19th Jan 2013, 05:48
Peter643 and Cool Guys:

Simple:

1) The external supply has a greater voltage than the battery.

2) The battery receives some of the current from the external supply.

3) The load (laptop, mobile, etc.) receives some of the current from the external supply.

PS

I am operating my laptop right now without its battery. :E . If i connect it now, the external supply must be capable to feed the battery too.

The mobiles (most) not operates without the battery. I think is just for cost reduction of the charger. I modified some mobiles using long endurance external batteries connecting them directly to the mobile instead the use of its internal battery. When recharging it (recharger set to 4,2 V directly connected to the external battery) the current (from the recharger) divides, part to the external battery and part to the mobile circuitry. A 18650 provides energy for several days of heavy use.

RR_NDB
19th Jan 2013, 06:26
NWA SLF:

Pilots saving our engineering asses. (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-8.html#post7642077)
If the investigation concludes the Li Ion batteries were operating with excessive voltage each cell (> 4,2 V or so) you still will consider that is reasonable transfer the issue to the pilots?

In AF447 case do you consider reasonable the pilots received a non fault tolerant and non gracefully degraded aircraft after encountering ice particles disabling the illusory redundancy created by the design and "maintained" by the carrier and authorities?

Pilots are paid to work operating machines that give chances to them in the event of failures.

A subsystem (battery + charger) in a highly sophisticated and advanced plane presenting this consequences (threatening the program) with smoke, electrolyte spill (inside an electronic bay) fire (BOS), emergency landing (TAK) and evac, IMO is a SHAME.

A redundant and safe DC supply (charger + battery) is an "ancient subsystem" and failures like the ones occurred are unacceptable. Boeing, Yuasa or Thales grounded the Dreamliner creating a Nightmare for everybody involved with the issue.

Something is VERY WRONG. This is very basic: A DC supply (from gennies), a battery and a load (the plane consumption). Difficult to manage? :{

I hope for a charger issue. Hardware, software, whatever. And FAST!

DaveReidUK
19th Jan 2013, 07:23
No I think he meant what he said which was that the design REQUIRED these batteries.

When the electrical system had been designed (requiring something like 1 MW of power!) the high energy density provided by use of Li-Ion technology was the only system which could provide such power at a reasonable size and weight.

Semantics.

Yes of course aircraft designers always want to save weight and space, and Li-Ion tops the list on those criteria, but that's not the same as saying that the 787 could not have been built without that particular battery technology.

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing ...

green granite
19th Jan 2013, 07:41
To be able to charge a battery from a circuit powered by that battery then you would have invented perpetual motion, aircraft batteries, like car batteries, are only there to power circuits until the engines are running after which the engine(s) generator(s) take over all the power requirements. With your laptop it's not the battery powering it it's the mains PSU.

Presumably these batteries have to be isolated from the buss by a blocking diode otherwise uncontrolled charging will take place which will cause the battery to overheat. Could it be that there are some nasty spikes on the buss that takes the blocking diode out?

wooski
19th Jan 2013, 08:13
most laptops power from both the Batt and Ac (not 100% of the time though). as the AC adaptor cant provide all the power required, eg a 65watt power brick cant provide full load to a laptop when the laptop is running at 100% and will also take power from the batt if available, if its not, then it will change the cpu/gpu to a lower power mode. If you run your laptop batt flat and plug in the charger, do something cpu/gpu intensive and you will notice the laptop will stop charging and use the full 65watts and then the batt as well (if there is any capacity) . So im guessing the 787 works similar, rather then float charging the li-on all the time , unless there is some special way to float charge a li-on.

any idea if they charge the batt from the 115Vac ? or from the 270Vdc ? on the 787 ? im guessing its easier(cheaper?) to covert from 115Vac to anything that the charger needs, rather then a DC to DC converter ?

SaturnV
19th Jan 2013, 10:11
New York Times article suggests 787s may not quickly be flying again.

Airbus executives have expressed sympathy for their rivals current woes and said they were confident Boeing would get to the bottom of the problem. But some acknowledged that an extensive review of the battery technology could set off costly delays in Airbuss rival program, the A350-XWB, which uses the same type of batteries and is scheduled to enter service in late 2014.

Problems with lithium-ion batteries in the aviation world are not new and have contributed to dozens of fires aboard airplanes in recent years. Cessna was forced to replace lithium-ion batteries on its CJ4 business jet with nickel-cadmium after a battery fire on the plane in 2011. The CJ4 was certified under special conditions similar to the 787s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/business/boeing-closer-to-answer-on-787s-but-not-to-getting-them-back-in-air.html?hp&_r=0

Terego
19th Jan 2013, 10:26
Here is another link from Ars technica on this issue:
Boeing’s Dreamliner batteries “inherently unsafe” (http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/01/boeings-dreamliner-batteries-inherently-unsafe-and-yours-may-be-too/)

The issue to stress is that these batteries are impossible to put out because they generate oxygen when in thermal runaway. Hence the spectacular roman candle video of what they can do. The safe technology based on LiFePO4 is unfortunately going to result in an approximate doubling of battery weight according to a battery specialist I talked to about this. How much do the batteries of the 787 weigh, so what would be the 'added weight of the solution?

keesje
19th Jan 2013, 15:56
Dreamliner 787 battery fires burn FAA and media too

The FAA and media come out looking foolish or institutionally corrupt as the 787 issues force regulatory responses, because there are other major question marks over this airliner and its certification as safe.

Dreamliner 787 battery fires burn FAA and media too | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/01/19/dreamliner-787-battery-fires-burn-faa-and-media-too/#comment-14900)

hetfield
19th Jan 2013, 16:05
As reported by the Wall Street Journal, the FAA outsourced one of the fundamentals of its responsibilities for testing and approving the batteries in the 787 back to Boeing (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323968304578248263709432272.html), the maker of the airliner which it was supposed to be certifying as safe.Unbelievable.....

John Farley
19th Jan 2013, 16:09
hetfield

unbelievable

I thought such practices were the norm. The FAA just does not have appropriate staff to enable it to do otherwise.

Bit like the NTSB who also have to pull in company specialists with many accidents.

poorjohn
19th Jan 2013, 16:12
If a battery can't be both charged and discharged, how can both my laptop and phone be on and under load when plugged in to charge and the battery still gets charged while the system is running?

Not to belabor the point but at a moment when your device is operating and the battery is being charged, the charger is doing all the work.

KBPsen
19th Jan 2013, 16:18
I thought such practices were the norm.As does anyone with more than a superficial knowledge of the certification process. There is nothing new, special or unbelievable here.

Sandilands appear to be looking for publicity by artificial controversy.

Lyman
19th Jan 2013, 16:20
No one expects FAA to keep expertise on staff. Their use of Boeing staff is bizarre.

In commercial construction, the authority can require additional or adjunct expertise at will; it does so utilizing independent sources, to avoid obvious conflict. And the engineering is underwritten by the builder.

And it has been that way for years...

Nothing Boeing does is so mysterious or proprietary that they must become the authority on duty of care. Or what constitutes regulation, or best practice.

It is inexcusable in aerospace that it should be this way.

sb_sfo
19th Jan 2013, 16:22
Boeing 787 battery in Japan sprayed hot chemicals | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020149011_787batterydamagexml.html)

hetfield
19th Jan 2013, 16:25
How much did the FAA pay BOEING to do the job?

RR_NDB
19th Jan 2013, 16:41
wooski

So im guessing the 787 works similar, rather then float charging the li-on all the time , unless there is some special way to float charge a li-on. (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-8.html#post7642281)

We will go deeper to address the issue.

Machaca
19th Jan 2013, 16:46
Washington Post reports (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/overcharging-of-batteries-likely-culprit-in-boeing-787-fires-aviation-and-battery-experts-say/2013/01/18/a701daea-61bf-11e2-81ef-a2249c1e5b3d_story.html):

Overcharging of batteries likely culprit in Boeing 787 fires, aviation and battery experts say



see Tech Log for more details and discussion.

RR_NDB
19th Jan 2013, 16:58
sb_sfo

"... two inside the battery and two external, would prevent any serious battery incident."
(http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020149011_787batterydamagexml.html)

With this degree of redundancy we may think she (batteries) are operating a little bit above safe levels (during recharge at BOS and TAK). I assume in both cases the Systems were recharging her. To higher current levels in Logan. (rear batt used to start APU and being fast charged by APU gennies)

This may lead to a much better scenario: No major design issues, no defective parts, just the need of tweaking. Critical devices normally presents this in their teething. A Li Ion battery is such.

:8 Finger crossing. :8

cwatters
19th Jan 2013, 17:05
An investigator in Japan, where a 787 made an emergency landing earlier this week, said the charred insides of the planes lithium ion battery show the battery received voltage in excess of its design limits

This investigator may have inside information but I very much doubt anyone can tell the cause from just looking at photos of the burnt remains!

Overdischarge can also cause problems for some Li cells when it's next charged. This is just one of the things that the charging circuit will check (eg that it's not too empty to be charged safely).

NPO19897 :: NASA Tech Briefs (http://www.techbriefs.com/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=/Briefs/Feb99/NPO19897.html)

"..overdischarge can result in dissolution of a metal current collector in the anode of a cell, with consequent internal short-circuiting of the cell..."

RR_NDB
19th Jan 2013, 17:10
Terego

How much do the batteries of the 787 weigh, so what would be the 'added weight of the solution? (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-8.html#post7642550)

There are 8 LVP65 cells inside a metal case with two protection circuitry in the battery. Ea cell 2,75 Kg (look for LVP65-MSDS.pdf at web).

Estimating: Around 60 pounds

RR_NDB
19th Jan 2013, 17:21
cwatters,

This is just one of the things that the charging circuit will check (eg that it's not too empty to be charged safely). (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-9.html#post7643258)

And additionaly, a tweaking of the algorithms is likely to be required to increase the reliability of the Battery System (Battery + management System)

This may explain severity of BOS incident and characteristics of TAK one. What was common to both? The battery type. (probably the management system too).

Excellent link you found (http://www.techbriefs.com/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=/Briefs/Feb99/NPO19897.html)

sAx_R54
19th Jan 2013, 17:36
What *does* your graphic say? Only tells me that ANA and JAL operate just less than half the global fleet of 787s.

Seems to say 50 planes, ~290 seats per craft, 14,500 passenger seats @ ~700GBP average, = 10MGBP per roster per day. In other words a reasonably large compensation claim appearing on the Boeing P+L.

sarabande
19th Jan 2013, 19:32
about twenty years ago I was involved in Emergency Planning for a South West County Council. We had a callout to a fire on the M5 near Taunton.

A truck carrying scrap material from RNAS and Westlands (Yeovil) caught fire and burned very fiercely. A slew of fire appliances had some difficulty extinguishing the blaze, and the water and foam provided a test of contamination procedures.

The 'inquest' revealed that a crate of lithium batteries from helicopters had been accidentally soaked with rain, and the resultant short-circuit had created a fire, which then affected other battery crates, and magnesium aircraft parts.

It was a visually spectacular fire

Procedures for isolating scrap lithium batteries from Westlands were put into place as a result.

Lithium battery fires are nothing new.

RR_NDB
19th Jan 2013, 20:02
sarabande:

Lithium battery fires are nothing new. (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-9.html#post7643452)

So, they may surprise us during her life and after they die. (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/505466-dreamliner-grounded-2.html#post7643360) :}

Taunusflyer
20th Jan 2013, 08:39
Interesting statements within airlines industry to FAAs decission of grounding 787: At Boeing, pushback on 787 grounding | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020173453_787teethingpainsxml.html)

Desert Dawg
20th Jan 2013, 10:24
shonandai posted an incorrect link to the picture of the affected battery. The correct link is Yomiuri On-Line iǔVj (http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/zoom/20130118-OYT9I01117.htm)

Walnut
20th Jan 2013, 12:31
Surely a total loss of the APU battery even if the fire is contained within the battery box is a no go item. A large number of the emergency proceedures require the APU to start, The Hudson River incident for example would not have been successful without a working APU. I guess the main battery is slightly more important, to supply the Hot battery bus for example. but as I understand both batteries are interchangable, then the cause & fixing of this problem must be completed before the a/c can fly again

Lyman
20th Jan 2013, 12:48
Taunusflyer. Thank you for the link, an interesting take on the grounding from Seattle.

To borrow a quote from TURIN, one I use often, "It is what it is...."

One of the easiest things to do, even easier than noodling out a battery problem, it seems to me, is to manage the way one's corporation is perceived by the client. And the Public...

Yelping aloud to reporters how unfair and unwise it is to act to protect the safety of the travelling public, even if true, is unprofessional, and ultimately, expensive.

Where does the Board find these people? Outsourced?

aterpster
20th Jan 2013, 12:59
First I've heard of shooting yourself in the second foot.

Lyman
20th Jan 2013, 13:03
Wheelchair at gate A 22, please.

golfyankeesierra
20th Jan 2013, 13:10
Walnut, what are you talking about?
Don't know about the 787 but on an ETOPS A330 the APU is NOT a no-go.
Do you fly the A320? How do you know then?

Rockwell
20th Jan 2013, 14:03
Apologies if this has already been referred to.

This recent FLIGHT article makes for interesting reading.

787 into uncharted territory (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-grounding-orders-moves-787-into-uncharted-territory-381148/). 17 January 2013

Greytraveler
20th Jan 2013, 14:17
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/business/global/ntsb-rules-out-a-cause-for-battery-fire-on-787-dreamliner.html?ref=business

manufacturing flaw then?

hetfield
20th Jan 2013, 14:21
Far more worrisome, however, are the newly-realised risks of fire posed by the two lithium-ion polymer batteries,flightglobal

To my knowledge, they are Lithium Cobalt type....

edmundronald
20th Jan 2013, 14:28
A Seattle Times article linked to above (http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020173453_787teethingpainsxml.html) indicates how unhappy Boeing is about the FAA decision. This shows exactly how divorced the business droids have become from reality:

There was a very real even though low-probability risk of the battery issues resulting in a serious incident; in fact one fire-fighter has already been injured, which is more than enough harm for a "safe" design.

The FAA with the grounding did them a huge service, reducing to zero the risk of a serious incident, giving them time to deploy a fix, and reassuring passengers that the fix will be a *real* fix.

If Boeing execs want to convincingly demonstrate confidence in their plane, I suggest they schedule a test flight to Japan and back for their wives and children.

Edmund

etudiant
20th Jan 2013, 14:30
Well, the batteries may not be off the hook as much as the Japanese safety investigators, as quoted here, believe :
Japan: Over-charging preceded ANA 787 battery malfunction (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/japan-over-charging-preceded-ana-787-battery-malfunction-381268/)
Now the NTSB says there was no overvoltage to the batteries:
NTSB rules out excess battery voltage in Boston 787 incident | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/20/us-boeing-ntsb-idUSBRE90J06I20130120)

So there is as yet no obvious simple cause for the failures and hence no quick end to the grounding. This is not good for either Boeing or its customers, because it also suggests that better monitoring of the batteries may not help.
An emergency replacement of the battery seems inevitable. Could Boeing just switch to the certified unit from the 777 and offset the performance shortfalls with process changes? Restarting the APU does not seem to be too demanding a task.

Ringway Flyer
20th Jan 2013, 14:59
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20130116FAAAD20130251E.pdf

Lyman
20th Jan 2013, 15:11
From REUTERS...

"On Tuesday, the U.S. investigating group will convene in Arizona to test and examine the battery charger and download non-volatile memory from the APU controller, the NTSB added."

That puts the NTSB at securaplane, the charging vendor. Could they not find a neutral venue? The vendor had a building burn to the ground when one of the test batteries ignited, in 2006?

ABCNEWS is reporting that the causes for JAL accident, and ANA incident were different.

hetfield
20th Jan 2013, 15:20
Surely, this will never happen in Aviation Industry....

-DcpANRFrI4

lomapaseo
20th Jan 2013, 15:36
I sense there are two issues here

the one that everybody seems to be talking about here is the failure of a single non-critical system in a spectacular way (see photos in previous posts)

Identifying and fixing the root cause only minimizes the risk to an unknown level since any battery is prone to failure for a variety of causes at any time.

The larger issue is the availability of redundancy and shielding should the battery fail in a critical flight regime.

I'm still not clear what the critical safety issue is that caused the grounding of this fleet. If we want to nit pick at Boeings comments then we need to understand this part of the equation.

For starters I am looking for expert comments on how necessary such a battery is to safe flight operation?

Secondly was this fire contained in a manner presumed in the original certification documents ?

It's one thing to have a precautionary landing and quite another to have a forced landing as this can be addressed by updating SOPs (still leaving the pilot to decide)

RR_NDB
20th Jan 2013, 15:55
Hi,

...the National Transportation Safety Board said an examination of the data from the planes flight recorder indicated that the battery did not exceed the designed voltage of 32 volts. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/business/global/ntsb-rules-out-a-cause-for-battery-fire-on-787-dreamliner.html?ref=business&_r=0)

Now Boeing is going to have just one option. Retrofit to Ni Cds. Implications:

1) Time
2) A/C specs
3) Cost, etc.

PR will be able to do a good job and industry continue to improve safety.

And what about the use of her in A380? :}

Lyman
20th Jan 2013, 16:00
lomapaseo

you write....

"I'm still not clear what the critical safety issue is that caused the grounding of this fleet."

You must have not read the Airworthiness Directive..... The FAA seem pretty clear.

You read it? Then are you second guessing the RA (Regulating Authority)? As in hand as FAA are, one would expect it took more evidence than necesssary to ground, not less?

Clarify?

RR_NDB
20th Jan 2013, 16:13
lomapaseo

I'm still not clear what the critical safety issue is that caused the grounding of this fleet. (http://www.pprune.org/7644865-post182.html)

The issue has a lot of components:

1) Safety of planes
2) Technical (What is the problem?)
3) Economic (in a difficult moment for US)
4) Influence to Boeing (Relies on 787)

IMO FAA is acting too politically. It seems aggravating the issue. But they should have info we dont. The name "Lithium battery" is tainted. And everybody relies on these batteries. There are many types, some even more dangerous, like Li Po.

FAA is near the center of a big storm. The eye (volatile) moving; a storm with lightnings capable to hit all players. :sad:

Heathrow Harry
20th Jan 2013, 16:27
when something bursts into flames that ain't supposed to I think that's a critical safety issue - especially when you look at what happens when aircraft DO catch fire in flight.............

RR_NDB
20th Jan 2013, 16:31
hetfield:

Surely, this will never happen in Aviation Industry.... (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-10.html#post7644831)

We cannot say this happened. First of all the Li Po are not being used in the Av industry.The planes transport every day, thousands (not being recharged, :)) with no reasons for alarm. And AFAIK, most laptops dont use Li Po.

So, we must concentrate on the problem now: Li Ion that were used (in the past, :}) in 787 and the continued use, RIGHT NOW on the fleet of A380.

Question: Li Ion in A380 are being kept "floating" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Float_voltage)by A/C?

It seems EADS could be affected too. :{

Avionista
20th Jan 2013, 16:32
I'm still not clear what the critical safety issue is that caused the grounding of this fleet.

The FAA/NTSB have not released any technical details of their specific concerns which led to the 787 fleet being grounded. It seems very unlikely that they would ground these aircraft due to the non-availability of electrical power from a battery. My guess it is fire damage (either actual or potential) to critical electrical systems within the EE bay that is the real worry, and the reason for the grounding.

The fire on the 787 in Boston was tackled by airport fire services very quickly and the fire on the ANA aircraft happened shortly after it departed Haneda airport. In both cases, it was possible to extinguish the fires reasonably quickly after their detection. However, the FAA will need to consider what fire damage might result to critical systems from a similar battery fire in mid-Atlantic, at 40,000'.

hetfield
20th Jan 2013, 16:34
We cannot say this happened. First of all the Li Po are not being used in the Av industry.The planes transport every day, thousands (not being recharged, http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif) with no reasons for alarm.Do you remember the 747F Dubai(?) crash?


wiki
In October 2010, the Federal Aviation Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration) (FAA) issued a Safety Alert for Operators highlighting the fact that the cargo on board Flight 6 contained a large quantity of lithium batteries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_batteries) and that Halon 1301 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halon_1301) was inefficient in fighting fires involving them.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6#cite_note-AvHeraldUPSB744-8) The FAA issued a restriction on the carrying of lithium batteries in bulk on passenger flights.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6#cite_note-AH431f0863-28)

llagonne66
20th Jan 2013, 16:52
After more than five years of A380 commercial service, we still need to see a battery related incident as serious as those witnessed on the 787.
This thread is addressing 787 batteries ... not A380 batteries.
So if you would like to address this matter, please open a dedicated thread.

Taunusflyer
20th Jan 2013, 17:16
@Avionista: It took 40 min to distinguish the Boston fire - this was not an easy task.

In my upper linked article of the Seattle Times Boeing rumours to be indignant about FAAs acting. For Boeing the 787 ist still safe to fly. I cant belive this careless behaviour. To have a malfunction in a product is one side, to ignore the risks another. Think this is no good PR for the reputation of Boeing.

On the other side the FAA seems faced a difficult situation. Once there will increase the pressure of commercial interests. But easing the situation and relase the 787 back to service before a real solution is on the table, will push the upcoming discussions theyve been to rigorous with the grounding.

For me they did the only right thing: In aviation "safety first".

TURIN
20th Jan 2013, 18:00
A fire breaks out on a couple of a/c. Neither the manufacturer of the battery, charger or a/c know why.
That seems to be good enough reason to ground it.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

RR_NDB
20th Jan 2013, 18:11
hetfield (http://www.pprune.org/members/137227-hetfield),

Do you remember the 747F Dubai(?) crash? (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-10.html#post7644984)Yes! Since few minutes after the crash i am looking to the issue: The danger Lithium batteries poses to us.

AFAIK UPS 744 was not transporting Li Po batteries nor using Li Ion batteries.

We are concentrated on li Ion and not Li Po, in your posted video. (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-10.html#post7644831)llagonne66 (http://www.pprune.org/members/301885-llagonne66)

This thread is addressing 787 batteries ... not A380 batteries. (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-10.html#post7645014)This thread is addressing 787 grounding.

The same type of battery is in operation right now in just one other type: The Airbus 380. The mention to this fact is pertinent to the discussion on the reasons of 787 grounding specially because FAA put the battery* at the focus.

i am concentrated on the 787 issue (battery selection are important to me as a designer) and may be your suggestion could be accepted by someone interested to create another thread.

(*) And the problem can be not exactly with the battery (chemistry) technology.

hetfield
20th Jan 2013, 18:19
We are concentrated on li Ion and not Li PoYes, but both are popular for overheat/fire....like we all know now!

TacomaSailor
20th Jan 2013, 18:20
"...the National Transportation Safety Board said an examination of the data from the planes flight recorder indicated that the battery did not exceed the designed voltage of 32 volts.

I do hope the NTSB was not trying to say there was no overvoltage problem because the external voltage was below the 8 cell limit.

Many technical reports about the batteries in question note that external charging voltage is no indication of cell to cell voltage. Those reports document cases of individual cells having excessive internal resistance which raised their internal voltage and leads to thermal runaway in that one cell.

The thermal damage then spreads to adjacent cells.

Most technical reports on safety and these batteries point out the need to monitor individual cell temperatures and to control the external voltage and current based on the worst performing cell.

RR_NDB
20th Jan 2013, 18:31
TURIN

That seems to be good enough reason to ground it. (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-10.html#post7645160)

The use of Li Ion batteries on airliners is under investigation. This should be enough to make other authorities to address the issue.

Important to differentiate the cells to the battery:

E.G.

The 787 battery is made by Thales using cells from Yuasa.

AFAIK the battery used in A380 emergency lightning comes from SAFT. The details will be commented in another thread.

TacomaSailor,

Important issue:

"individual cells having excessive internal resistance which raised their internal voltage and leads to thermal runaway in that one cell."

I will go further: You need to monitor ea. cell voltage AND temperature, during charge AND discharge. This is critical (safety) and important for longer life. I (strongly suspect) have serious objections how they are using the cells.

The safest would be to separate them (redundantly) electrically and physically. This will be addressed in 787 Batteries and Chargers
(http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/505695-787-batteries-chargers.html)

RR_NDB
20th Jan 2013, 18:50
hetfield,

Yes, but both are popular for overheat/fire....like we all know now! (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-10.html#post7645196)

Some 3 years ago i discussed with a major airliner CEO a dangerous scenario of smokes in an overhead bin due a laptop battery failure and the CC training for that.

The video you posted is important to remember us to be proactive on the issue. Indeed a lot of pax and crew are transporting it (not being recharged, fortunately) in A/C.

Rgds,

golfyankeesierra
20th Jan 2013, 19:07
Re RR_ndb
haha, the problem on the 380 were the RR, not the batteries :):)

RR_NDB
20th Jan 2013, 19:19
golfyankeesierra,

The mix of Li Ion and RR indeed is :mad:

:{

RR_NDB
20th Jan 2013, 19:35
golfyankeesierra,

Some years ago i was sleeping when the Ni Cd pack of my motorola vehicular caught fire whilst being recharged. Still "sleeping" i separated the pack from the unit burning slightly one finger. The pack was protected thermally and electrically but the adjacent cells (like VC10, B52, Nimrod, dangerous engines config.) were the factor of the complete destruction of the pack.

I strongly suspect the designers of these batteries are playing a very dangerous game. And the toll yet was paid by Boeing.

More to come, :sad:

In my electric bike i yet installed an APU of 300W. The battery is just for lighting and motor-gennie start.

cwatters
20th Jan 2013, 20:20
NTSB: Excess battery voltage ruled out in 787 fire | HeraldNet.com - Work (http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130120/BIZ/130129997/1005/biz)

NTSB: Excess battery voltage ruled out in 787 fire

Investigators have ruled out excess battery voltage as the cause of a Jan. 7 fire onboard a Boeing Co. 787.

The lithium-ion battery at the center of the investigation was not overcharged, the National Transportation Safety Board said in a statement Sunday. The NTSB has not determined the cause yet in that 787 fire.

fdr
20th Jan 2013, 21:04
the Herald.net article states:

Boeing said last week it won't deliver more 787s until the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration instructs it on how to prove the Dreamliner's flammable lithium-ion batteries are safe.. Interesting concept. The FAA does not instruct the OEM how to comply... that is the OEM's job to show compliance, or an equivalent safety finding, or to justify a special conditionbeing approved by the RA.

The B787 Type Certificate FAA TCDS T00021SE/EASA.IM.A.115 section 5, Special Conditions, has certificate review item (CRI) F24, Lithium Ion Batteries which is the area of interest at present. Would think that the FAA would be disinclined in accepting on face value the assumptions of fitness for service and risk analysis (25.1309) on a basis consistent with the good old risk matrix (MIL STD 882D).

Lyman
20th Jan 2013, 21:22
"Boeing said last week it won't deliver more 787s until the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration instructs it on how to prove the Dreamliner's flammable lithium-ion batteries are safe."


Whatever the source of the quote, if Boenig is doing that, it is in contravention of the AD, as the FAA state clearly the company itself must "demonstrate the battery system is safe". They also require 'methods and materials' to be submitted by the OEM to the ACOM. Boeing cannot possibly be painting themselves as a "victim": "show us what to do?" Could their public position be that childlike?

The Lithium install violated virtually all of the considerations required by FAA from the git..

"AD Requirements
This AD requires modification of the battery system, or other actions, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA."

gorter
20th Jan 2013, 21:38
Just a quickie. Boeing stating they won't deliver anymore till problem's fixed is surely a moot point. For a simple pilot like me, if pretty much every aviation administration around the world requires compliance with this AD then surely the aircraft won't be allowed to fly anyway, so couldn't be delivered? Or is this Boeing trying to spin some feel good publicity?

Ye Olde Pilot
20th Jan 2013, 21:41
And let's not forget the "if it's not Boeing I'm not" going brigade who laughed at Airbus. They've all gone quite now.

The big problem for Boeing is the pictures of grounded aircraft,the airframes coming out of the plant and the negative publicity.
No Airbus alarm over Boeing's Dreamliners | Video | Reuters.com (http://www.reuters.com/video/2013/01/17/no-airbus-alarm-over-boeings-dreamliners?videoId=240569010)

Airbus will milk this for what it is worth.

Now let's looks at the worst according to Flight International..
A much worse case is that the malaise spreads to the entire electrical architecture of the Dreamliner, forcing a back-to-the-drawing-board rethink of Boeing's design philosophy. This might take the aircraft out of service for a year or more, and would bring the airframer close to financial meltdown as it battled with a crisis much worse than the delay it experienced getting the 787 to certification.
This, however, is extremely unlikely. While Boeing took a gamble in creating an aircraft so dependent on electrical systems and composite aerostructures, it has already gone through the lengthy and painful process of convincing regulators the Dreamliner is safe. That the authorities signed off on an aircraft with such a fundamental design flaw is close to inconceivable.
As for the other incidents that have beset the type over the past few months -- a fan shaft failure on an engine, an oil leak, a windshield crack -- all can safely be put down to teething problems. Most new aircraft experience issues of this sort, an inevitable consequence of a test program becoming a production aircraft and the sheer complexity of modern airliner design.
How Boeing can bounce back from Dreamliner problems - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/dreamliner-murdo-analysis/index.html)

RR_NDB
20th Jan 2013, 21:56
fdr, Lyman and gorter

The severity of the crisis is showed by the "Review of the 787."

Since the beginning i am with the impression FAA is not acting properly.

They seems acting too politically and somewhat aggravating the issue.

They should know much more than we have now.

if pretty much every aviation administration around the world requires compliance with this AD then surely the aircraft won't be allowed to fly anyway,



:}

Ye Olde Pilot

It seems we are watching just the onset of a nightmare. :{

Ye Olde Pilot
20th Jan 2013, 22:09
Not sure about nightmare but unless Boeing can sort these problems quickly and restore confidence their share price could dive. Airlines have invested money in these grounded airframes and we have insurers who will no doubt be hiking their rates for the Dreamliner.

The media are having a field day. How do you convince passengers to fly
on an aircraft with such problems?

As the engineers try to resolve the issues the bills are stacking up.

RR_NDB
20th Jan 2013, 22:10
Ye Olde Pilot

...all can safely be put down to teething problems.

:confused: All? :confused:

The innovation on the Dreamliner was very big. The magnitude is unprecedented*, i guess.

(*) For an airliner

Lyman
20th Jan 2013, 22:12
Implicit in this FAA 'review' is a thorough inventory of the relationship Boeing/FAA.

So it is worthy of note that Boeing is defensive. In aviation, 'attitude' is all.

Landing gear in mouth disease...

From CNN......

"The grounding of the 787 fleet illustrates not the flaws in Boeing's industrial culture -- a rush to bring the airliner to market, a degree of over-innovation or a desire to please shareholders by outsourcing too much design and production -- but the rigor of a regulatory regime with a zero tolerance of any mote of imperfection. And, for anyone who flies, that is good to know."

Rubbish, and I call BS on this.... Japan grounded them first, and FAA followed suit.

Likewise, thirty percent of this CNN piece is lifted from PPRuNe...

Ye Olde Pilot
20th Jan 2013, 22:13
Boeing are fighting on two fronts....technical and financial.

I would not to be in that boardroom.

RR_NDB
20th Jan 2013, 22:26
Lyman:

In aviation, 'attitude' is all.

:):):)

I hope this attitude doesn't signal a LOC :{

Lyman
20th Jan 2013, 22:39
Boeing have immediate worries, as to losses, but if they value their reputation, they'll stop talking, sounding petulant, and growsing. Or their long term image will suffer.

This problem will likely sort, and soon, so I can't fathom their immature public profile.

fdr
20th Jan 2013, 23:09
CNN: "FAA zero tolerance"

You're kidding!

So then when are the B738's with the bogus ring frames going to be grounded, and the OEM pinged for their behaviour? Heck, have only had 3 accidents where the aircraft have broken up at these locations...

The FAA is grossly underfunded and undermanned. They are also politicised, and operate in an environment of continuous uncertainty due to the delights of the USA's "Fort Fumble" senate funding.

RR_NDB
20th Jan 2013, 23:19
fdr,

...but the rigor of a regulatory regime with a zero tolerance of any mote of imperfection. And, for anyone who flies, that is good to know

Zero tolerance to BS means never read this type of media. :mad:


They are also politicised

They seems aggravating a yet serious issue.

:{

Cool Guys
21st Jan 2013, 00:39
Do we know the specific technical reason why the plane was grounded?
Obviously the APU would not have been able to start via the battery. I dont believe this alone is a reason to ground it.

The EAD states there was heat damage. What was damaged? I can see the battery experienced significant heat damage. Was this heat damage enough to affect the safety of the plane? Was there any other heat damage. Was that enough to effect the safety?

The EAD states there was smoke. I assume the smoke they refer to was coming from the battery and nothing else. Sure, smoke does not look good but it does not mean safety is compromised. Of course the smoke would have to be ducted outside the aircraft and not into the cabin during flight.

The EAD states there was release of flammable electrolytes. Is this the issue that grounded the plane? Was there a risk of the electrolytes bursting into flames and damaging the structure or critical systems? It is not clear.

There is no indication that I have heard that there were flames in the electrical equipment bay.

Perhaps the plane is safe? Perhaps the measures taken by the battery manufacturer to contain any fire worked? Sure, the picture of the battery with the cover removed looks bad but flames successfully contained within the battery casing does not neccassarily pose a safety risk

etudiant
21st Jan 2013, 01:46
The battery fire in the JAL plane took the Logan fire department, with unlimited extinguishing agent and manpower, plus ground access, a half hour to extinguish . That does not look good for an in flight recovery. Then the ANA incident proved damage in flight was not contained in the compartment, but rather that fumes impacted the cockpit and passenger cabin. Seems reasonable to me to conclude that this is a safety of flight issue.

Lyman
21st Jan 2013, 01:56
I think the AD is self explanatory. But I see no reason not to criticize FAA either. It is a valid opinion; for that matter, Boeing seems to be challenging the FAA as well.

At least from a public point of view, Boeing is making the FAA look bad, the FAA is making itself look bad, by hesitating, and Boeing is making Boeing look bad.

In the middle is a 40Billion dollar program with over 800 airframes sold.
Who defends the program? Not the egotists playing games.... This aircraft deserves better....

Who is defending the aircraft from a seemingly boneheaded decision to utilize high strung storage chemistry?

Enough Pride, and that embarrassing stubbornness. It's a beautiful aircraft, fix it. You're ten meters from the finish line, stop whining.

FlightPathOBN
21st Jan 2013, 02:24
concur,

the FAA went above and beyond to provide Boeing with an expedited validation process....

Now the FAA is going to review the entire process...

and that was BEFORE Boeing slammed them..

It was also interesting that Boeing looks like they will not compensate airlines that are grounded, stating "you accepted it"...

one can only imagine where this is all going.

(dont worry, the engineers are going to strike anyways...wont have to worry about deliveries in the near future...)

from the other thread..

"Boeing will move away from its original lithium ion battery design for its main and auxiliary power units, flight-control electronics, emergency lighting system and recorder independent power supply. Instead, Boeing is investigating the incorporation of manganese inside the lithium ion battery to boost service life.

Boeing has not determined which 787 will be the first to receive the new battery modifications, although multiple programme sources have told Flight's FlightBlogger affiliate that the new battery could be introduced as early as Airplane Seven, the first production 787 scheduled for delivery to All Nippon Airways in the third quarter of 2009. "
Boeing looks to boost 787 lithium ion battery service life (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-looks-to-boost-787-lithium-ion-battery-service-life-224663/)

This just in....
Federal investigations said Sunday they had ruled out excessive voltage as the cause of a battery fire on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner in Boston this month,


"excessive" is different than "overcharging"....:\

RR_NDB
21st Jan 2013, 02:37
Cool Guys

Look this:

"Lithium ion batteries on the Boeing Model 787-8 airplane must be designed and installed as follows:

(1) Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained during any foreseeable charging or discharging condition and during any failure of the charging or battery monitoring system not shown to be extremely remote. The lithium ion battery installation must preclude explosion in the event of those failures.

(2) Design of the lithium ion batteries must preclude the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature or pressure.

(3) No explosive or toxic gases emitted by any lithium ion battery in normal operation, or as the result of any failure of the battery charging system, monitoring system, or battery installation not shown to be extremely remote, may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

(4) Installations of lithium ion batteries must meet the requirements of 14 CFR 25.863(a) through (d).

(5) No corrosive fluids or gases that may escape from any lithium ion battery may damage surrounding structure or any adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring of the airplane in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 25.1309(b) and applicable regulatory guidance.

(6) Each lithium ion battery installation must have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery can generate during a short circuit of the battery or of its individual cells.

(7) Lithium ion battery installations must have a system to control the charging rate of the battery automatically, so as to prevent battery overheating or overcharging, and,

(i) A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition, or,

(ii) A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of battery failure.

(8) Any lithium ion battery installation whose function is required for safe operation of the airplane must incorporate a monitoring and warning feature that will provide an indication to the appropriate flight crewmembers whenever the state-of-charge of the batteries has fallen below levels considered acceptable for dispatch of the airplane.

(9) The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness required by 14 CFR 25.1529 must contain maintenance requirements for measurements of battery capacity at appropriate intervals to ensure that batteries whose function is required for safe operation of the airplane will perform their intended function as long as the battery is installed in the airplane. The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness must also contain procedures for the maintenance of lithium ion batteries in spares storage to prevent the replacement of batteries whose function is required for safe operation of the airplane with batteries that have experienced degraded charge retention ability or other damage due to prolonged storage at a low state of charge.
(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-04-30/pdf/E7-8186.pdf)

After the grounding from carriers and considering there were no other options (just the battery type that failed at BOS and TAK) FAA acted doing the only option the Agency had. Cutting the risk of a third case to zero.
Probably there are other concerns we don't know. The Design review is a serious issue.

FlightPathOBN
21st Jan 2013, 02:48
I dont seem to remember...Pilot smells something burning and decides to emergency land the aircraft..

as a viable part of the safety system...

that according to Boeing, " worked perfectly"...

lomapaseo
21st Jan 2013, 03:07
RR_NDB


Enough reasons for grounding?


Good start at a certification basis :ok:

Now may we have some facts of what parts of this may not have been met? (anybody).

Keep in mind that equivalent safety basis may accept some failure conditions if they are protected against.

NWA SLF
21st Jan 2013, 03:12
As a Boeing stockholder I guess it is time to make my feelings known to the board of directors. Telling the press that the leaders of the NTSB and FAA don't know the front of the plane from the back - what kind of PR people would allow such remarks no matter what personal feelings might be.

The fire on the ground in Boston - apparently there was no on-board fire supression system to control the fire. The Boston fire fighters had difficulty reaching the batteries and in fact sustained an injury getting the the source to extinguish the fire. I have not seen a Boeing statement on this other than say the cabin is pressurized so that if such a problem happened in flight the pressure would push the smoke out so the passengers wouldn't breath it. That remark did not build confidence in me. Stop the freaking fire!

They also said a battery fire could not happen in flight because the APU battery was only used on the ground. Okay, I am not a pilot, but I have read blogs where pilots talk about starting the APU while the plane is still in the air. Is this wrong?

In the ANA airliner the battery was not an APU starting battery. Okay, second fire within a month. This is serious.

Li-Ion batteries are not the only ones that can explode. Anyone who has worked with good oldtime lead-acid batteries is familiar with all of the safety precautions. Remember the old faithful VW Beetle? It's battery was under the rear seat. My boss' wife and daughter were seriously burned by the sulphuric acid when the battery in their car exploded. It is not only new tech that causes problems, but failure to admit problems and resolve them...

Boeing management is remarkably similar to MD with the DC-10. First they have a cargo door fail during fatigue testing. The famous Convair memo that if we don't fix this we are going to kill someone. Then an in-air accident happens over Windsor and again MD ignores saying the plane is safe. It took the plane crash in France killing 346 people before they recognized they had a serious problem. I have a shadow box on my wall with a half dozen pieces from that aircraft reminding me what mistakes can cost.

It will take something like proving that a fire resulting from a battery problem can be safely contained - under ETOPS conditions.

Cool Guys
21st Jan 2013, 03:40
Etudiant,

Did it take half an hour to extinguish the fire? It seems the fire department would have been confronted with a battery with smoke pouring out its seams. Did they really try to extinguish the fire contained within the battery housing or did it take half an hour to burn itself out? What danger did this smoke pose to the structure or the critical systems? Would this smoke be life threatening to the passengers or crew? From what I have read in this forum the smoke would not have entered the cabin while in flight. There was a smell of smoke while on the ground but it did not seem life threatening. I have not read anything that clarifies these points. I dont expect I will find anything until after the full investigation is completed.

RR_NDB,

The quotes you refer to sound very bad. Do you think all planes with Lithium ion batteries should be grounded?

Im not trying to say the planes should not have been grounded. I am a strong believer in engineering that is robust and a little conservative and having the advantage of hind sight I think nicads should be used. However I try not to think I know better than Boeing. Perhaps they have done it right? In any case with all the drama that has been generated I think Boeing will be forced to get rid of the Li batteries even if they do meet all the safety requirements.

Earl
21st Jan 2013, 06:07
Will put my 2 cents in here,
Batts no matter what type are just a storage device.
For example your car, rated at 12 volts, batt is 12 volts, the charging current going into the batt is 13.5 to 14 volts.
Depending on the state of discharge and governed by the voltage regulator.
You would never get a fully charged batt with just a 12 volt charge going into it, has to be higher.
12 volts is already considered 50 percent discharge.
On the 747 batt voltage is 32-36 represents a normal batt charge.
The apu batt is only used during apu start, but has a lower voltage requirement on pre flight.
The main ships batt is always lower because it is wired to the hot battery bus and always has a discharge , clocks etc.
Just wondering if this main ships batt is very low and not being charged as much due to short flights, maybe overheatingtrying to make up for the loss, a sponge even though dry can only soak up so much water a a time will will try to take as much as it can.
If you overcharge or exceed it it will boil over.
Sorry just and old F/E and thoughts.
Thats why the smoke and mirrors replaced us,
They know best.

robdean
21st Jan 2013, 06:09
Investigation focus 'is now on the battery charger and APU':

BBC News - US widens Dreamliner safety probe after battery finding (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21115383)

Carbon Hybrid
21st Jan 2013, 06:13
Look into lithium dendritic structure. Microscopic anneal process.:8

Turbavykas
21st Jan 2013, 06:24
But what's the big deal?Incident: ANA B788 near Takamatsu on Jan 16th 2013, battery problem and burning smell on board (http://avherald.com/h?article=45c377c5&opt=0) The battery is smaller than the car battery. Just put any other type. Will be twice as big but who cares? Can be done in couple of hours.

robdean
21st Jan 2013, 06:34
Turbavykas, that is without doubt my favourite PPrune post ever. How soon can you be in Seattle?

AirScrew
21st Jan 2013, 06:42
You're welcome to him in Seattle. We certainly don't want that sort of genius here in Europe. Shame we can't shed these non aviation types, or that they don't care to learn from ppr.:ugh::ugh:

Earl
21st Jan 2013, 06:43
have to agree also.
stick the old proven types back in and get the airplane back in the air.
Not much difference in the weight, retire a few grandma F/A. at united.
Even lesser weight reduction
Batts weigh less .

Romulus
21st Jan 2013, 06:43
But what's the big deal?Incident: ANA B788 near Takamatsu on Jan 16th 2013, battery problem and burning smell on board The battery is smaller than the car battery. Just put any other type. Will be twice as big but who cares? Can be done in couple of hours.

BRILLIANT!!

I nominate the Baghdad battery. Nothing like returning to old technology to get a tried and tested outcome!

The Baghdad Batteries (http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/baghdadbatteries.htm)

cwatters
21st Jan 2013, 06:57
Just put any other type. Will be twice as big but who cares? Can be done in couple of hours

The charger and battery protection systems need to be matched with the battery cell technology, so unless that already supports a different cell chemistry (eg NiMh or NiCad) then no you can't just fit a different battery tech in a few hours. There are likely to be other issues as well. Is there an NiMH pack available with all the same connectors/signals in the right places?

from an earlier post...

They also said a battery fire could not happen in flight because the APU battery was only used on the ground.

So it's not charged in flight either? There have been cases of Li batteries combusting when not in use, sometimes weeks after the original damage occured but this wasn't a Li Manganese cell technology.

400drvr
21st Jan 2013, 07:13
Didn't Boeing have an in flight fire on the Dreamliner during flight testing and if so does anyone know if it was battery related?

cwatters
21st Jan 2013, 07:20
Don't think this was battery related..

Boeing: 787 fire caused by failure in aft electronics bay power panel | ATWOnline (http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-components/news/boeing-787-fire-caused-failure-aft-electronics-bay-power-panel-1112)

hetfield
21st Jan 2013, 09:22
- ...First of all the Li Po are not being used in the Av industry.
- ...We are concentrated on li Ion and not Li Po,
RR NDB

check this

Most Li-polymer packs for the consumer market are based on Li-cobalt.Li-polymer Battery: Substance or Hype? (http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/the_li_polymer_battery_substance_or_hype)

To my knowledge, the 787 LiIon are cobalt based.

So, the scaring vid I posted is not toooo off...:*
Regards

Mark in CA
21st Jan 2013, 09:32
Another relevant article on battery technology:

Boeing’s Dreamliner batteries “inherently unsafe” (http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/01/boeings-dreamliner-batteries-inherently-unsafe-and-yours-may-be-too/)

Avionista
21st Jan 2013, 11:10
If it is only battery safety that is concerning the FAA, I wonder if replacing the Yuasa battery with an equivalent SAFT Li-ion unit would work as an interim 'fix' to get the 787 fleet in the air again.

SAFT seem to have a good safety and reliability record in the supply of LI-ion batteries for use in space vehicles. For this application, they must be capable of withstanding mechanical stresses during launch and a wide temperature range during orbit. Safety features on individual SAFT cells include a shutdown separator, a circuit breaker, a vent and a stainless steel outer case. A SAFT battery, comprising a number of individual cells, is then encased in a further stainless steel container.

See link: http://www.saftbatteries.com/doc/Documents/liion/Cube572/MP144350_1009.ff6efb8d-6aab-45ef-ae7a-7fe4af5b011d.pdf

glad rag
21st Jan 2013, 11:12
Any more on the previous report that the APU battery charger takes it's supply off the F/O's Instrument supply bus?

Yeah, I shook my head too when I read it.........they wouldn't would they...:hmm:

From a post by gas path (http://www.pprune.org/members/10204-gas-path) in http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505348-ana-787-makes-emergency-landing-due-battery-fire-warning-12.html

post 224

The four engine driven generators supply the 235v variable freq. That goes to the aft and fwd EE bays. The aft EE bay Auto TRU's convert to +/-270vDC.
The DC is for driving the cabin air compressors, centre hyd. pumps. O/Jett pumps, the ram fans, and the NGS compressor.
The APU battery located in the same bay supplies the APU Hot Batt Bus its charger is supplied from the F/O's instrument bus. APU starter 235vac from the ATRU.
The main a/c battery located fwd. is charged (via a charger) from the capt's instrument bus. This is the only one with a diode pack to prevent the Hot batt. bus from back feeding the battery.
The PMG's only power the eng. EEC's
Windmilling engines will provide some hydraulic power. Enough for flight controls.
The RAT will supply hydraulic power to the centre hyd. system.
The RAT will supply electrical power to the ac busses (with some serious load shedding!) but primarily the backup bus, flt. instrument busses, brake system controllers (130VDC)
I'm tired its getting late..so apologies if I've got something wrong.


So the possibility, however slight, of a cascading battery failure [s] dragging down the supply buss[es] for both "sets" of instruments?

that can't be right surely.....:(

overthewing
21st Jan 2013, 11:46
Can I just clarify some confusion in my head? There are two batteries per plane, is that right? One for the APU and one for the rest of the plane's electrical requirements? The various battery problems encountered in the 787 involve both the APU battery and the main ship battery, yes? Are these both Li-ion and made by Yuasa? And are they both physically in the same electronics bay?

hetfield
21st Jan 2013, 11:52
There are two batteries per plane, is that right?
Yes

One for the APU and one for the rest of the plane's electrical requirements?
Yes

The various battery problems encountered in the 787 involve both the APU battery and the main ship battery, yes?
Yes

Are these both Li-ion and made by Yuasa?
Cells (Li-Ion) are made bei Yuasa, Batteries are labled "THALES"

And are they both physically in the same electronics bay?
No, main batt in fwd E/E, APU batt in aft E/E compartement.

jolihokistix
21st Jan 2013, 12:01
If this is a repost, please erase. Look at pic #2, about 1/3 down this page:
Dreamliner Fire: Investigation Widened (http://news.sky.com/story/1040689/dreamliner-fire-investigation-widened)

glad rag
21st Jan 2013, 12:04
See my modified post 238 above..............

hetfield
21st Jan 2013, 12:24
So the possibility, however slight, of a cascading battery failure [s] dragging down the supply buss[es] for both "sets" of instruments?


glad rag

Don't worry, if a battery :mad: up, the relevant charger will not affect its supply bus.

overthewing
21st Jan 2013, 12:27
@hetfield - thanks.

hetfield
21st Jan 2013, 12:39
Securaplane, a unit of Britain's Meggitt Plc, first began working on the charger in 2004, but suffered millions of dollars of damages in November 2006 after a lithium-ion battery used in testing exploded and sparked a fire that burned an administrative building to the ground.Securaplane makes the chargers for 787.....

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/5/11/51145247-0398-5a9e-9007-efef6c500934/51145247-0398-5a9e-9007-efef6c500934.preview-300.jpg
787 probe puts spotlight on Arizona battery firm | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/21/us-boeing-securaplane-idUSBRE90J0B320130121)

HalloweenJack
21st Jan 2013, 13:28
A question if I may be so bold:

the incident in 2010 involving ZA002 was because of a fire in panel P100

where in relation to the aft batteries , is panel P100?

Speed of Sound
21st Jan 2013, 13:42
"The P100 panel sits on the left side of the aft electrical equipment (EE) bay, and is part of a highly-integrated electrical system that receives 235v ac power from the left engine's twin 250 kVA engine generators for distribution throughout the aircraft."

I have a diagram of the layout of the Aft EE Bay but despite having an 'insert image' icon above, there seems to be no way to upload an image to a post. :{

The bay is made up of three sections. The battery is situated to the right of the centre section at 'floor' level.

Hope this helps.

Lyman
21st Jan 2013, 13:50
It would be nice if the ZA thread here (PPRuNe) could be accessed, I cannot. There were photographs, and many enlightening posts as to the fire that caused the emergency in Laredo.

There are two myths, or at least two explanations as I recall.

1. The fire started as the result of an itinerant 'tool' left in P100 by a 'workman'.

I call this the "numbskull" theory.....


2. FOD occluded venting, allowing the bay to overheat, and ignite......

This is the "dumb janitor" theory....

There was smoke in the cabin, as I remember.....

BOAC
21st Jan 2013, 13:52
SoS - http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/246758-image-posting-pprune-guide.html

Tu.114
21st Jan 2013, 13:58
http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2013/1/18/215899/default/v1/rtr3clbt-1-522x293.jpg

This picture is from the article linked to by Jokihokistix and seems to have been taken at the ANA incident.

Does not look like the effects of a properly contained fire to me - and it is also a good thing they put the aircraft on the ground that quickly.

aviate1138
21st Jan 2013, 13:58
A rough guide.....

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn77/aviate1138/ScreenShot2013-01-21at145642_zpsf410759e.png

hetfield
21st Jan 2013, 14:14
Sad, people forget fast....

UPS 1307
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2007/AAR0707.pdf

20. Testing and incident data indicate that lithium batteries can pose a fire hazard.
21. Because many incidents involving lithium batteries are exempt from reporting
requirements, the data regarding such incidents are incomplete, which has prevented
a thorough assessment of the causes of these failures and the risks associated with
transporting lithium batteries.
22. An in-depth analysis of the causes of secondary and primary lithium battery failures
would improve the safe transportation of these batteries.
23. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administrations August 2007 final rule
regarding the transportation of lithium batteries did not establish sufficient levels of safety for air transportation of small secondary lithium batteries (no more than 8 grams equivalent lithium content).

As a result of this investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board
makes the following recommendations to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration:
Require aircraft operators to implement measures to reduce the risk of
primary lithium batteries becoming involved in fires on cargo-only aircraft,
such as transporting such batteries in fire resistant containers and/or in
restricted quantities at any single location on the aircraft. (A-07-104)
Until fire suppression systems are required on cargo-only aircraft, as asked
for in Safety Recommendation A-07-99, require that cargo shipments of
secondary lithium batteries, including those contained in or packed with
equipment, be transported in crew-accessible locations where portable fire
suppression systems can be used. (A-07-105)
Require aircraft operators that transport hazardous materials to immediately
provide consolidated and specific information about hazardous materials on
board an aircraft, including proper shipping name, hazard class, quantity,
number of packages, and location, to on‑scene emergency responders upon
notification of an accident or incident. (A‑07‑106)
Require commercial cargo and passenger operators to report to the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration all incidents involving
primary and secondary lithium batteries, including those contained in or
packed with equipment, that occur either on board or during loading or
unloading operations and retain the failed items for evaluation purposes.
(A‑07-107)
Analyze the causes of all thermal failures and fires involving secondary
and primary lithium batteries and, based on this analysis, take appropriate
action to mitigate any risks determined to be posed by transporting lithium
batteries, including those contained in or packed with equipment, on board
cargo and passenger aircraft as cargo; checked baggage; or carry-on items.
(A‑07‑108)
Eliminate regulatory exemptions for the packaging, marking, and labeling
of cargo shipments of small secondary lithium batteries (no more than
8 grams equivalent lithium content) until the analysis of the failures
and the implementation of risk‑based requirements asked for in Safety
Recommendation A-07-108 are completed. (A-07-109)
UPS 6
http://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/ePublication/admin/iradmin/Lists/Incidents%20Investigation%20Reports/Attachments/16/2010-Interim%20Report%20B747-400F%20-%20N571UP%20-%20Report%2013%202010%20-%20Rev%201.pdf
History of Lithium Battery Accidents in the Aviation Industry
Since the UPS Flight 1307 onboard fire occurred in February 7, 2006 [NTSB Report No. AAR‐07‐07]
there have been 34 battery and battery‐powered devices aviation incidents reported to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) involving batteries that involved smoke, fire, extreme heat or
explosion. Approximately 22 of these aviation incidents involved lithium‐ion batteries, with 14 of
these incidents having resulted in an actual fire. The remaining 12 aviation incidents involved lithium‐metal batteries, with eight of these incidents having resulted in an actual fire....The investigation is focusing on several possible ignition sources, primarily the location in the cargo of lithium and lithium derivative batteries that were onboard. ....
Lithium batteries transported in commerce are regulated by both the Department of Transportation
(DOT) Hazardous Material Regulations (HMR) and International Civil Aviation Organization Technical
Instructions (ICAO TI). Both sets of regulations classify most lithium batteries as DOT Class 9
hazardous materials; however the regulations do except certain shipments of lithium batteries from
being shipped as dangerous goods. These exceptions allow some shipments of lithium batteries to
be offered for transport without shipping papers, and not subject them to marking and most
labeling requirements.

glenbrook
21st Jan 2013, 14:21
Some observations
1) Lithium Batteries do sometimes catch fire, but Boeing has had two battery fires with fewer than 50 units shipped. This points to a design flaw somewhere, be it in the battery itself, charging circuit, monitoring software etc. Such a flaw can be found and it can be fixed.
2) Lithium-ion batteries catch fire more often than other kinds. I have no doubt that Boeing's woes will spur innovation to make them safer, but on a timescale that is too long for the current model 787. It may not be possible to make them as safe as other battery technologies. In the medium term, we may need to accept a higher risk that batteries occasionally catch fire, perhaps in the same way that we accept that engines do.
3) Boeing really can't move to another battery technology without unraveling other parts of the design, it is just not feasible. Other technologies have about 1/2 the energy density. I suspect that it would be similarly too late to make a change for the A350 without incurring major delays.
4) Boeing won't lose any orders as a result. New sales may be deferred, but there should be no net loss. There are no other alternatives for a company looking for new aircraft in this class. Moving the to the A350 is not an option for those in the queue for the 787. Not only is the queue nearly as long for the A350, the product is not even shipping yet and is likely to be subject to delays, as the 787 was.

I expect a flaw will be found, but even when fixed, the batteries will be at higher risk of failure than other kinds. The question is whether this higher risk will be admitted and accepted by the FAA and other regulatory bodies.