ANA 787 makes emergency landing due 'battery fire warning'
Just reading the Japanese news and it is being reported that it wasn't smoke but a burning smell, and that the main battery(ies) in the forward electrical compartment have now been discovered to be off-color and discharging a liquid. (Japan Yahoo news in Japanese from TBS and JNN.) My translation.
Ｂ７８７緊急着陸、バッテリー変色し液漏れ(TBS系（JNN）) - Yahoo!ニュース
Evacuation video. 時事ドットコム：動画特集 「コックピットから煙」、７８７型機が高松空港に緊急着陸＝視聴 者提供映像
Ｂ７８７緊急着陸、バッテリー変色し液漏れ(TBS系（JNN）) - Yahoo!ニュース
Evacuation video. 時事ドットコム：動画特集 「コックピットから煙」、７８７型機が高松空港に緊急着陸＝視聴 者提供映像
Last edited by jolihokistix; 16th Jan 2013 at 11:46.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NHK News
NHK news spent 15 minutes on this issue.
Passenger reported a very quick decent with a newspaper falling off a seat and coffee cups sliding forward.
Pilots apparently received several warning messages in the cockpit including generator issues and backup system issues. Smoke was detected in the forward battery /electrical compartment. A burning smell was also noticed.
Battrey was found to be discolored and leaking fluid. Japan air safety authorities said the battery temperature may have been extremely high.
Takamatsu controllers noticed smoke after landing and the pilot then initiated emergency evacuation
Rgds.
Passenger reported a very quick decent with a newspaper falling off a seat and coffee cups sliding forward.
Pilots apparently received several warning messages in the cockpit including generator issues and backup system issues. Smoke was detected in the forward battery /electrical compartment. A burning smell was also noticed.
Battrey was found to be discolored and leaking fluid. Japan air safety authorities said the battery temperature may have been extremely high.
Takamatsu controllers noticed smoke after landing and the pilot then initiated emergency evacuation
Rgds.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even the most partisan of people in the A v B debate (of which, in spite of reputation, I am not) are likely to recognise that.
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 16th Jan 2013 at 13:28.
FX Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Greenwich
Age: 67
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Reuters a Japanese firm makes batteries for the Dreamliner, which is a tad ironic.
The company is GS Yuasa Corp and the shares were hit on the Tokyo bourse, falling nearly 5 percent.
However, the report only says the company makes batteries for the aeroplane, not all batteries. If they don't make the batteries in the forward compartment, fill your boots as the shares will bounce back!
The company is GS Yuasa Corp and the shares were hit on the Tokyo bourse, falling nearly 5 percent.
However, the report only says the company makes batteries for the aeroplane, not all batteries. If they don't make the batteries in the forward compartment, fill your boots as the shares will bounce back!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South of MAN, North of BHX, and well clear of Stoke ;-)
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly, NH203 which took off about three hours after the emergency landing and arrived on time in FRA, was supposed to take off again as NH204 more than an hour ago. It is not cancelled and showing up as on time in flighttracker.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Cork, Ireland
Age: 55
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When one reflects on the concerns and of Airbus that were expressed on this website with the teething problems on the 388, it begs the question why the grounding of the Japanese 788 fleets and the FAA review of the aircraft has elicited such a subdued response.
It does look bad for Boeing, but they must have contigencies for this sort of thing, And if you are going to have a problem which grounds the aircraft, it is far better that it happens when you have 50 planes in service, not 500.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, about four hours after scheduled departure, it is still being shown as departed on time in FRAport and flightaware but there is no position info on flightaware.
I activated email notifications from FRAport for Thursday's NH203/204, and while the showed 787 initially, they were changed to 772 about an hour ago. US flights remain cancelled in flightaware.
I activated email notifications from FRAport for Thursday's NH203/204, and while the showed 787 initially, they were changed to 772 about an hour ago. US flights remain cancelled in flightaware.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
q \EE^EbANA now shows tomorrow (Th 17th) cancellations and changes of equipment. It states that all international flights will be operated with different equipment.
I wonder how long they can keep that up?
There was no list of We 16th cancellations on the English ANA website until an hour ago (and there is not now either that the schedule for tomorrow has shown up).
I wonder how long they can keep that up?
There was no list of We 16th cancellations on the English ANA website until an hour ago (and there is not now either that the schedule for tomorrow has shown up).
Last edited by BRE; 16th Jan 2013 at 13:41.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Li-ion 787 certification special condition
The FAA issued a Special Condition for the use of li-ion batteries on the 787. Boeing made several design provisions for control of fire and smoke spread.
Recent incidents suggest these may not have been sufficient.
It will be interesting to see FAA's reaction, and how quickly Boeing can address what may be a significant issue.
Freighters, after several hull losses, can no longer carry these batteries as cargo. It is surprising that even with special provisions the FAA has allowed passenger aircraft to have them designed in.
Recent incidents suggest these may not have been sufficient.
It will be interesting to see FAA's reaction, and how quickly Boeing can address what may be a significant issue.
Freighters, after several hull losses, can no longer carry these batteries as cargo. It is surprising that even with special provisions the FAA has allowed passenger aircraft to have them designed in.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from today's Japan Times:
"Boeing chose lithium-ion batteries for the 787, which uses five times more electricity than similar jets, because they hold more energy and can be quickly recharged, Mike Sinnett, chief 787 project engineer, said. In a worst-case scenario in which the batteries do burn, they are designed to do so in a way that doesn't threaten the aircraft, Sinnett said.
If the jet is airborne, smoke is supposed to be vented out of the compartment so that it doesn't reach the cabin, he said, and all of the battery cells can ignite without harming the plane's ability to stay aloft."
So that must be a heck of a fire shield...
"Boeing chose lithium-ion batteries for the 787, which uses five times more electricity than similar jets, because they hold more energy and can be quickly recharged, Mike Sinnett, chief 787 project engineer, said. In a worst-case scenario in which the batteries do burn, they are designed to do so in a way that doesn't threaten the aircraft, Sinnett said.
If the jet is airborne, smoke is supposed to be vented out of the compartment so that it doesn't reach the cabin, he said, and all of the battery cells can ignite without harming the plane's ability to stay aloft."
So that must be a heck of a fire shield...
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Boeing chose lithium-ion batteries for the 787, which uses five times more electricity than similar jets, because they hold more energy and can be quickly recharged, Mike Sinnett, chief 787 project engineer, said. In a worst-case scenario in which the batteries do burn, they are designed to do so in a way that doesn't threaten the aircraft, Sinnett said."
**********************
So what we see, fundamentally, is a waiver. As such, the elements of impenetrable protection of the airframer....
Sinnett admits the likelihood they will burn, and protects the company from liability via "designed to not threaten the aircraft."
Stop, think..
**********************
So what we see, fundamentally, is a waiver. As such, the elements of impenetrable protection of the airframer....
Sinnett admits the likelihood they will burn, and protects the company from liability via "designed to not threaten the aircraft."
Stop, think..
Last edited by Lyman; 16th Jan 2013 at 14:34.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRE,
To be fair, the structural damage caused by the battery fire that did occur was quite limited. The NTSB talked about it being "confined to the area immediately near the APU battery rack (within about 20 inches) in the aft electronics bay".
Perhaps not that big a shield, but only good venting, and thermally resistant materials in the area where the heat is going.
So maybe they did a proper risk analysis after all. The statement did not say that it would leave the aircraft undamaged, only that it "could stay aloft" and wasn't threatened by the fire. The venturi-suction system would have to be able to vent all smoke out of the E/E bay without it entering other parts of the craft. From what I've seen the system is supposedly able to maintain adequate equipment cooling during cruise, but what about a full-blown Li-Ion battery fire during descent?
The venturi system as such is fine, as it requires no moving parts to operate, however it does require moving parts (valves closing and opening, fans switching off), to get it to start working.
I wonder if they did flight-tests, or at least full-size wind-tunnel tests with actual fires.
Lyman,
I see that rather as a positive statement, indicating that they did a risk analysis, and considered the likelihood and severity of a battery fire. Doing a proper risk management means that once a hazard has been identified and the associated risk (as far as is possible) quantified, you take measures to either reduce its likelihood, or its severity, possibly by mitigating the effects on people and equipment. If it is well engineered and the regulator agrees that can be acceptable.
I haven't seen the engineering details (and probably never will) so I cannot say that it wasn't adequately done; it seems plausible. The amount of energy that can be set free can be known, the temperature, heat, propagation and duration of a worst-case fire can be estimated, and mitigating technology can be incorporated. I think it depends in large parts on the reliability of the E/E bay ventilaton system entering "override" mode, i. e. passive overboard-venturi suction.
Bernd
from today's Japan Times:
"Boeing chose lithium-ion batteries for the 787, which uses five times more electricity than similar jets, because they hold more energy and can be quickly recharged, Mike Sinnett, chief 787 project engineer, said. In a worst-case scenario in which the batteries do burn, they are designed to do so in a way that doesn't threaten the aircraft, Sinnett said.
If the jet is airborne, smoke is supposed to be vented out of the compartment so that it doesn't reach the cabin, he said, and all of the battery cells can ignite without harming the plane's ability to stay aloft."
So that must be a heck of a fire shield...
"Boeing chose lithium-ion batteries for the 787, which uses five times more electricity than similar jets, because they hold more energy and can be quickly recharged, Mike Sinnett, chief 787 project engineer, said. In a worst-case scenario in which the batteries do burn, they are designed to do so in a way that doesn't threaten the aircraft, Sinnett said.
If the jet is airborne, smoke is supposed to be vented out of the compartment so that it doesn't reach the cabin, he said, and all of the battery cells can ignite without harming the plane's ability to stay aloft."
So that must be a heck of a fire shield...
Perhaps not that big a shield, but only good venting, and thermally resistant materials in the area where the heat is going.
So maybe they did a proper risk analysis after all. The statement did not say that it would leave the aircraft undamaged, only that it "could stay aloft" and wasn't threatened by the fire. The venturi-suction system would have to be able to vent all smoke out of the E/E bay without it entering other parts of the craft. From what I've seen the system is supposedly able to maintain adequate equipment cooling during cruise, but what about a full-blown Li-Ion battery fire during descent?
The venturi system as such is fine, as it requires no moving parts to operate, however it does require moving parts (valves closing and opening, fans switching off), to get it to start working.
I wonder if they did flight-tests, or at least full-size wind-tunnel tests with actual fires.
Lyman,
Sinnett admits the likelihood they will burn, and protects the company from liability via "designed to not threaten the aircraft."
I haven't seen the engineering details (and probably never will) so I cannot say that it wasn't adequately done; it seems plausible. The amount of energy that can be set free can be known, the temperature, heat, propagation and duration of a worst-case fire can be estimated, and mitigating technology can be incorporated. I think it depends in large parts on the reliability of the E/E bay ventilaton system entering "override" mode, i. e. passive overboard-venturi suction.
Bernd
Last edited by bsieker; 16th Jan 2013 at 14:48.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course they did. No aeronautical engineering team is going to propose a solution of that sort without performing one if not several. The potential issue is that such analyses and tests are only as good as the pre-existing data, and with new solutions there's only going to be a limited amount of that.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen....
You are "not wrong". Neither of you has stated anything untrue. My assumption is that you expect to have had an effect on the discussion....
I am missing it.....
Can you elaborate? In light of recent events? That will allow my response in presenting an argument that FAA and Boeing are acting incestuously....
You are "not wrong". Neither of you has stated anything untrue. My assumption is that you expect to have had an effect on the discussion....
I am missing it.....
Can you elaborate? In light of recent events? That will allow my response in presenting an argument that FAA and Boeing are acting incestuously....
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DozyWannabe,
I know they did. My comment was rather tongue-in-cheek to all those saying "how could they do this? Didn't they think of the consequences?"
The development and physical properties of Li-Ion batteriy fires can be estimated quite well. Although maybe they were too optimistic on the likelihood, the mitigating measures may be adequate for the severity.
The probability of failure of the mitigating measure (venting override) of course has to fit the probability the of the original hazard (battery fire), and a redesign may be required in this case.
Bernd
I know they did. My comment was rather tongue-in-cheek to all those saying "how could they do this? Didn't they think of the consequences?"
The development and physical properties of Li-Ion batteriy fires can be estimated quite well. Although maybe they were too optimistic on the likelihood, the mitigating measures may be adequate for the severity.
The probability of failure of the mitigating measure (venting override) of course has to fit the probability the of the original hazard (battery fire), and a redesign may be required in this case.
Bernd
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
IIRC correctly from the SAA 747 Combi fire Boeing did tests for a fire as well. Turned out they used a straw bale and a quickly extinguished fire. When they re-ran them with a high-temp sustained fire after the event the results were drastically different.
The FAA/NTSB may be interested in investigating the test scenarios used against the events to date.
The FAA/NTSB may be interested in investigating the test scenarios used against the events to date.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So they (presumably) are designed to burn with no immediate danger to the a/c. What is then standard procedure in case of burning smell: land ASAP except when it's from the Li-Ion battery?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pax2908
A serious answer to your question would be, "It's SOP.." Get out the manual.....
My innocent guess is that their is no SOP for onboard fire of any description except to land, immediately....
"If located in either EE bay, (fire).....disregard"
I am hopeful someone will take a very long, hard look at the relationship....
A serious answer to your question would be, "It's SOP.." Get out the manual.....
My innocent guess is that their is no SOP for onboard fire of any description except to land, immediately....
"If located in either EE bay, (fire).....disregard"
I am hopeful someone will take a very long, hard look at the relationship....
