Dreamliner concern
Thread Starter
Dreamliner concern
There is a banner headline on news at the moment saying that investigators are concerned at findings of investigation of 787 Dreamliner, presumably of the recent battery/fire problem.
Anybody know anything or heard any rumours?
Anybody know anything or heard any rumours?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We know that the lithium-ion battery experienced a thermal runaway, we know that there were short circuits, and we know that there was a fire. The work that we continue to do will tell us why these things happened.
...And it is answering the "why" question that will ensure that the appropriate corrective actions are taken," she said while briefing the results of NTSB investigation.
Investigation into Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery shows short circuiting - The Times of India
...And it is answering the "why" question that will ensure that the appropriate corrective actions are taken," she said while briefing the results of NTSB investigation.
Investigation into Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery shows short circuiting - The Times of India
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New technology chasing light weight may well come back to bite Boeing on the bum.
Simple but pithy , tried to airfreight a device with a lithium battery lately, Australia Post simply wont entertain airfreight along with most 1st level airfreight operators.
Simple but pithy , tried to airfreight a device with a lithium battery lately, Australia Post simply wont entertain airfreight along with most 1st level airfreight operators.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I am confident, perhaps naively, that the 787 will eventually be a huge success, however things like this will be major hurdles. Lithium batteries are a known problem and if they can't get this right, the alternatives will be a compromise.
Some times the laws of physics can only be pushed so far.
I bet the A350 boys and girls are ensuring they don't get caught this way.
I will be sticking to old technology 777 and dino-747 for the foreseeable future
Some times the laws of physics can only be pushed so far.
I bet the A350 boys and girls are ensuring they don't get caught this way.
I will be sticking to old technology 777 and dino-747 for the foreseeable future
A little bit surprised that this has happened, i would have assumed that Vendor Items like batteries and chargers would have to be TSO compliant before being approved by The FAA for inclusion in The 787, were they not tested adequately?..Hopefully a fix can be found with minimal downtime, even if it involves reverting to older technology components...
Last edited by zlin77; 25th Jan 2013 at 10:46.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although on a much smaller scale, talk to anyone in the radio controlled plane community and they'll have a story about problems charging lithium/ liPo batteries. I've personally had a fire which was pretty much impossible to extinguish, also had a friend who left an unattended liPo battery on charge in his house and yes a fire burnt the top floor off his house. Bit of a gamble fitting them to commercial aircraft I'd say.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Items like batteries and chargers would have to be TSO compliant before being approved by The FAA for inclusion in The 787
What about TSO’s?
Another question to be answered is what, if any, of the equipment needs to be “TSO’ed”. In order to address this question, it’s
helpful to understand what a “TSO” is. TSO stands for Technical Standard Order, which is defined in 14 CFR Part 21, section
21.601(b)(1) as “….a minimum performance standard for specified articles (for the purpose of this subpart, articles means
materials, parts, processes, or appliances) used on civil aircraft.” As you can see from this definition, a TSO is actually a
performance standard to which an article can be manufactured.
When someone says an article is “TSO’ed”, what they really mean is that the unit was manufactured under a TSO
authorization. Section 21.601(b)(2) says, “A TSO authorization is an FAA design and production approval issued to the
manufacturer of an article which has been found to meet a specific TSO”. You’ll note that the TSO and TSO authorization deal
specifically with design and manufacture, and have nothing to do with installation or operation.
Another question to be answered is what, if any, of the equipment needs to be “TSO’ed”. In order to address this question, it’s
helpful to understand what a “TSO” is. TSO stands for Technical Standard Order, which is defined in 14 CFR Part 21, section
21.601(b)(1) as “….a minimum performance standard for specified articles (for the purpose of this subpart, articles means
materials, parts, processes, or appliances) used on civil aircraft.” As you can see from this definition, a TSO is actually a
performance standard to which an article can be manufactured.
When someone says an article is “TSO’ed”, what they really mean is that the unit was manufactured under a TSO
authorization. Section 21.601(b)(2) says, “A TSO authorization is an FAA design and production approval issued to the
manufacturer of an article which has been found to meet a specific TSO”. You’ll note that the TSO and TSO authorization deal
specifically with design and manufacture, and have nothing to do with installation or operation.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the wiki article on Li-ion batteries is not particularly pleasant reading
to quote
"These safety issues present a problem for large scale application of such cells in Electric Vehicles; A dramatic decrease in the failure rate is necessary." Lithium-ion battery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the rest of the safety information is quite worrying for an airliner.
they might have to go back to something less sexy for battery tech. NiMH like the hybrid cars?
to quote
"These safety issues present a problem for large scale application of such cells in Electric Vehicles; A dramatic decrease in the failure rate is necessary." Lithium-ion battery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the rest of the safety information is quite worrying for an airliner.
they might have to go back to something less sexy for battery tech. NiMH like the hybrid cars?
Last edited by lurker999; 25th Jan 2013 at 13:14. Reason: correction of poor use of a and an
Moderator
I've lived long enough to remember the teething problems when most new aircraft were introduced, including the B747, DC10, Concord, A300, A380 and I even vaguely remember the Comet woes. Military aircraft generally had even worse initial problems, particularly the F111.
There is absolutely no doubt that ultimately the B787 will be another very successful Boeing airliner.
There is absolutely no doubt that ultimately the B787 will be another very successful Boeing airliner.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Remember the GE-90 issues with the 777? quite a few IFSD,s along with diversions...wearing gearboxes requiring an oil system redesign...and don't forget the aircon pack issues....
Now look at the 777, particularly the 300ER.
Boeing will sort it, they have a track record of doing just that.
Now look at the 777, particularly the 300ER.
Boeing will sort it, they have a track record of doing just that.
Am surprised that this situation has come to this as has been said already amongst these pages LiPo or LiOn batts are not the most stable form of stored energy, I know having had more toy planes than most have had hot meals here & i wouldn't even dream of leaving a LiPo unattended not even for a minute whilst charging or being used, just too unstable they are. Tome they are a stored time bomb!
These types of batts do offer superior storage & discharge capabilities but to have them cooked up inside a plane may not be the brightest thing Beoing have done. My opinion only of course & nuffin' else:-)
Dreamliner, hmmmm "I have a dream"...........& look what happened to that man!:-)
Wmk2
These types of batts do offer superior storage & discharge capabilities but to have them cooked up inside a plane may not be the brightest thing Beoing have done. My opinion only of course & nuffin' else:-)
Dreamliner, hmmmm "I have a dream"...........& look what happened to that man!:-)
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 26th Jan 2013 at 00:27.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with most comments. The Dreamliner will be a superb asset, once all the bugs are ironed out. It is advanced technology at it's best, however with that sort of progression comes the teething problems.
Hopefully no major occurrence will happen with it in Australia as the poor ATSB under its pathetic executive management team simply are not capable of contributing to a high level investigation.
Hopefully no major occurrence will happen with it in Australia as the poor ATSB under its pathetic executive management team simply are not capable of contributing to a high level investigation.
Hopefully no major occurrence will happen with it in Australia as the poor ATSB under its pathetic executive management team simply are not capable of contributing to a high level investigation.
NTSB Press Release
National Transportation Safety Board
Office of Public Affairs
NTSB Chairman says 'We have not ruled anything out' in investigation of Boeing 787 battery fire in Boston.
January 24
WASHINGTON - In a press conference today, National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman released preliminary findings from the NTSB's ongoing investigation into the Jan. 7, 2013, Boeing 787 battery fire in Boston. "We have not ruled anything out as a potential factor in the battery fire; there are still many questions to be answered," Hersman said.
Noting that there was a B-787 battery incident in Japan on Jan. 16, 2013, which is being investigated by the Japan Transport Safety Board, Hersman said, "One of these events alone is serious; two of them in close proximity, especially in an airplane model with only about 100,000 flight hours, underscores the importance of getting to the root cause of these incidents."
The investigation revealed that the battery in the B-787 fire in Boston showed signs of short circuiting, and had indications of thermal runaway, a situation in which a significant temperature increase can initiate a destructive chain reaction.
Chairman Hersman also expressed concerns about the adequacy of the systems to prevent such a fire from occurring. "The investigation will include an evaluation of how a fault that resulted in a battery fire could have defeated the safeguards in place to guard against that," said Hersman. "As we learn more in this investigation, we will make recommendations for needed improvements to prevent a recurrence."
Investigators developed the following timeline of the events on Jan. 7, which was released at today's briefing:
10:06 am EST - Aircraft arrived at gate in Boston from Narita, Japan
10:32 am - Cleaning and maintenance crew noticed smoke in cabin
10:35 am - Mechanic noted flames coming from APU battery in aft electronics bay
10:37 am - Airport Rescue & Fire Fighting notified
10:40 am - Fire and rescue personnel arrive on scene
12:19 pm - Fire and rescue personnel report event was "controlled"
The batteries were manufactured by GS Yuasa for the Thales electrical installation and are unique to the Boeing 787. The same battery model is used for the main airplane battery and for the battery that is used to start the auxiliary power unit, which is the one that caught fire in Boston.
Radiographic examinations of the incident battery and an exemplar battery were conducted at an independent test facility. The digital radiographs, or computed tomography (CT) scans, generated from these examinations allowed NTSB investigators to document the internal condition of the battery prior to disassembling it.
Ongoing lab work includes an examination of the battery elements with a scanning-electron microscope and energy-dispersive spectroscopy to analyze the elemental constituents of the electrodes to identify contaminants or defects.
NTSB INVESTIGATIVE TEAMS
In addition to the activities at the NTSB lab in Washington, members of the investigative team have been conducting work in Arizona, Seattle and Japan. Their activities are detailed below.
ARIZONA
- The acceptance test procedure of the APU battery charging unit was conducted at Securaplane in Tucson, Ariz., on Jan. 21.
- The battery charging unit passed all significant tests and no anomalies were detected.
- Members of the airworthiness group examined the APU start power unit at Securaplane in Tucson. The same team traveled to Phoenix to conduct an examination of the APU controller at UTC Aerospace Systems.
SEATTLE
- NTSB investigators are working with Boeing teams as part of root cause analysis activities related to the design and manufacturing of the electrical battery system.
- The two JAL B-787 general purpose module units, which record airplane maintenance data are being downloaded at Boeing to obtain information that was recorded after the airplane's electrical power was interrupted.
JAPAN
- The NTSB-led team conducted component examination of the JAL B-787 APU battery monitoring unit at Kanto Aircraft Instrument Company, Ltd., in Fujisawa, Kanagawa, Japan.
- The team cleaned and examined both battery monitoring unit circuit boards, which were housed in the APU battery case. The circuit boards were damaged, which limited the information that could be obtained from tests.
National Transportation Safety Board
Office of Public Affairs
NTSB Chairman says 'We have not ruled anything out' in investigation of Boeing 787 battery fire in Boston.
January 24
WASHINGTON - In a press conference today, National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman released preliminary findings from the NTSB's ongoing investigation into the Jan. 7, 2013, Boeing 787 battery fire in Boston. "We have not ruled anything out as a potential factor in the battery fire; there are still many questions to be answered," Hersman said.
Noting that there was a B-787 battery incident in Japan on Jan. 16, 2013, which is being investigated by the Japan Transport Safety Board, Hersman said, "One of these events alone is serious; two of them in close proximity, especially in an airplane model with only about 100,000 flight hours, underscores the importance of getting to the root cause of these incidents."
The investigation revealed that the battery in the B-787 fire in Boston showed signs of short circuiting, and had indications of thermal runaway, a situation in which a significant temperature increase can initiate a destructive chain reaction.
Chairman Hersman also expressed concerns about the adequacy of the systems to prevent such a fire from occurring. "The investigation will include an evaluation of how a fault that resulted in a battery fire could have defeated the safeguards in place to guard against that," said Hersman. "As we learn more in this investigation, we will make recommendations for needed improvements to prevent a recurrence."
Investigators developed the following timeline of the events on Jan. 7, which was released at today's briefing:
10:06 am EST - Aircraft arrived at gate in Boston from Narita, Japan
10:32 am - Cleaning and maintenance crew noticed smoke in cabin
10:35 am - Mechanic noted flames coming from APU battery in aft electronics bay
10:37 am - Airport Rescue & Fire Fighting notified
10:40 am - Fire and rescue personnel arrive on scene
12:19 pm - Fire and rescue personnel report event was "controlled"
The batteries were manufactured by GS Yuasa for the Thales electrical installation and are unique to the Boeing 787. The same battery model is used for the main airplane battery and for the battery that is used to start the auxiliary power unit, which is the one that caught fire in Boston.
Radiographic examinations of the incident battery and an exemplar battery were conducted at an independent test facility. The digital radiographs, or computed tomography (CT) scans, generated from these examinations allowed NTSB investigators to document the internal condition of the battery prior to disassembling it.
Ongoing lab work includes an examination of the battery elements with a scanning-electron microscope and energy-dispersive spectroscopy to analyze the elemental constituents of the electrodes to identify contaminants or defects.
NTSB INVESTIGATIVE TEAMS
In addition to the activities at the NTSB lab in Washington, members of the investigative team have been conducting work in Arizona, Seattle and Japan. Their activities are detailed below.
ARIZONA
- The acceptance test procedure of the APU battery charging unit was conducted at Securaplane in Tucson, Ariz., on Jan. 21.
- The battery charging unit passed all significant tests and no anomalies were detected.
- Members of the airworthiness group examined the APU start power unit at Securaplane in Tucson. The same team traveled to Phoenix to conduct an examination of the APU controller at UTC Aerospace Systems.
SEATTLE
- NTSB investigators are working with Boeing teams as part of root cause analysis activities related to the design and manufacturing of the electrical battery system.
- The two JAL B-787 general purpose module units, which record airplane maintenance data are being downloaded at Boeing to obtain information that was recorded after the airplane's electrical power was interrupted.
JAPAN
- The NTSB-led team conducted component examination of the JAL B-787 APU battery monitoring unit at Kanto Aircraft Instrument Company, Ltd., in Fujisawa, Kanagawa, Japan.
- The team cleaned and examined both battery monitoring unit circuit boards, which were housed in the APU battery case. The circuit boards were damaged, which limited the information that could be obtained from tests.
MOIE you forgot to mention that Beaker has got his head so far over the Fort Fumble bunsen burner that he'd be incapable of noticing the pineapple being inserted from the other end...
I was reading another thread in the tech log section that supposedly back in 2011 they had detected a battery problem the same as what occurred recently and a whistle blower got fired because he reported the problem to the media last year, but boeing still did nothing to fix the battery problem.
Here is a bit more info into what happened. http://www.oalj.dol.gov/Decisions/AL...3_CADEC_SD.PDF
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you have a spare 5 minutes, an informative video to watch on LiIo battery runaway is here:
PC fire due to unstable Lithium-Ion Battery
The video is hyperlinked in this story, which is worth the read:
Boeing Battery Quick Fix May Be Elusive | National Legal and Policy Center
Reading the story makes me (not particularly cautious) re-evaluate my optimism for the 787 with LiIo batteries.
PC fire due to unstable Lithium-Ion Battery
The video is hyperlinked in this story, which is worth the read:
Boeing Battery Quick Fix May Be Elusive | National Legal and Policy Center
Reading the story makes me (not particularly cautious) re-evaluate my optimism for the 787 with LiIo batteries.
Last edited by Lodown; 28th Jan 2013 at 14:30.
Latest NTSB investigation update 29/01/2012: Press Release January 29, 2013
Interesting catch pull-up-terrain!
After reading the Judge Dorsey decision it would appear that Michael Leon was a pretty difficult person to work with.
Maybe the Securaplane bosses would have paid more attention to his concerns over the LiIon batteries if he had more credibility in the workplace.
Still it does seem like they could possibly have circumvented the issue if they had only taken heed of what Leon had observed as a potential problem in the manufacture process of the batteries.
Interesting catch pull-up-terrain!
After reading the Judge Dorsey decision it would appear that Michael Leon was a pretty difficult person to work with.Maybe the Securaplane bosses would have paid more attention to his concerns over the LiIon batteries if he had more credibility in the workplace.
Still it does seem like they could possibly have circumvented the issue if they had only taken heed of what Leon had observed as a potential problem in the manufacture process of the batteries.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A350 XWB
Airbus have apparently decided not to continue with LiOn batts to their new A350 XWB, preferring to backtrack and use NiMh or NiCad (unsure which). Wise move on their part, not risking delays/potential probs for their new XWB and also letting Boeing iron out the bugs!
