ANA 787 makes emergency landing due 'battery fire warning'
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@SpeedofSound
Next sentence: "Smoke in the cabin, or smell thereof..."
Historically, from the first indication of fire, such as, perhaps, an electrical anomaly accompanied by a smell, to the time people start dying is about 20 minutes.
Next sentence: "Smoke in the cabin, or smell thereof..."
Historically, from the first indication of fire, such as, perhaps, an electrical anomaly accompanied by a smell, to the time people start dying is about 20 minutes.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from Boeing land...
2 airlines ground 787 fleets | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times
It appears there are two Li batteries on the ac, one at the front in the forward EE bay, and the other in the rear with the APU....
Rumour here has the latest adventure in the forward battery pack...
It also appears that a previous poster is correct, the ac at Logan had previous problems with faulty circuit boards...
2 airlines ground 787 fleets | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times
It appears there are two Li batteries on the ac, one at the front in the forward EE bay, and the other in the rear with the APU....
Rumour here has the latest adventure in the forward battery pack...
It also appears that a previous poster is correct, the ac at Logan had previous problems with faulty circuit boards...
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 16th Jan 2013 at 16:14.
It appears there are two Li batteries on the ac, one at the front in the forward EE bay, and the other in the rear with the APU....
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".
CCR is the brain of the beast.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes Turin...I see that...it really doesnt ever mention that this battery is LI...
the front battery looks significantly larger...
dont see this video anywhere on the thread...from a cell phone camera onboard during the evac....
the front battery looks significantly larger...
dont see this video anywhere on the thread...from a cell phone camera onboard during the evac....
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 16th Jan 2013 at 17:52.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FPO
It also looks to be readily accessible, externally. Absent a space walk, how to address a fire problem whilst, you know, airborne?
OK. Ceramic vault, with fireproof penetrations, and internal and isolated fire suppression, with cooling.
How did Toyota do it........
Again, Outsourcing may not strictly apply here. Yuasa is a well respected and cutting edge company, who, actually, make batteries, not fire systems or cooling kit....
It is a self-contained unit, requiring only proper install and wiring.
There is "In house", "Sole source", "integrated RFP", and the way Boeing did it.
Prolly not again.....
It also looks to be readily accessible, externally. Absent a space walk, how to address a fire problem whilst, you know, airborne?
OK. Ceramic vault, with fireproof penetrations, and internal and isolated fire suppression, with cooling.
How did Toyota do it........
Again, Outsourcing may not strictly apply here. Yuasa is a well respected and cutting edge company, who, actually, make batteries, not fire systems or cooling kit....
It is a self-contained unit, requiring only proper install and wiring.
There is "In house", "Sole source", "integrated RFP", and the way Boeing did it.
Prolly not again.....
Last edited by Lyman; 16th Jan 2013 at 17:51.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@BRE re Fire shield:
If the battery burns it melts through the composite frame and the resulting decompression ejects the battery entirely, ingenious engineering.
If the battery burns it melts through the composite frame and the resulting decompression ejects the battery entirely, ingenious engineering.
Last edited by grimmrad; 16th Jan 2013 at 17:59.
This thread is getting around. I have found it linked to in the German Spiegel Online (German; 3rd non-bold section).
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lyman...just added the video...interesting to say the least...difficult to tell, but it does appear to be smoke at front of plane....
I was trying to see what the seatmount screens were saying, and scrolling...
Here is a prius battery
the tesla uses a liquid refrigerant cooling system, about half the car...
Chevy volt uses a liquid cooled battery pack as well....
I was trying to see what the seatmount screens were saying, and scrolling...
Here is a prius battery
the tesla uses a liquid refrigerant cooling system, about half the car...
Chevy volt uses a liquid cooled battery pack as well....
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 16th Jan 2013 at 18:14.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like the screens were rebooting, it seems some of them are showing "Please wait". Only SLF but I would have thought it probably not the best thing to display during an evacuation
Last edited by Ben_S; 16th Jan 2013 at 18:13.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denmark
Age: 79
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from post #75:
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".
OK, but bear in mind that this incident occured on the ground at a large airport with a very professional Fire Brigade responding within 3 minutes!
Also note that it took about 40 minutes to put the fire out - in other words it must have been a complicated fire.
What the damage would have been if this incident had happened at 35000 feet, that is a good question, which I will not even try to answer.
But one thing is crystal clear: there is no Fire Department at 35000 feet to assist you!
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".
OK, but bear in mind that this incident occured on the ground at a large airport with a very professional Fire Brigade responding within 3 minutes!
Also note that it took about 40 minutes to put the fire out - in other words it must have been a complicated fire.
What the damage would have been if this incident had happened at 35000 feet, that is a good question, which I will not even try to answer.
But one thing is crystal clear: there is no Fire Department at 35000 feet to assist you!
Last edited by grebllaw123d; 16th Jan 2013 at 18:26.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ben... "Please wait"...exactly, probably not the best...
that is what I thought, rebooting...
that in itself is an interesting issue as well...
Looks like Boeing just confirmed it was the main battery in the front. They have cancelled the annual strategy meeting, and have gone into overdrive...
I used to work with the guy Boeing hired to set up the 787 Safety Management System Program...but I am not gonna even try to contact him for a while!
that is what I thought, rebooting...
that in itself is an interesting issue as well...
Looks like Boeing just confirmed it was the main battery in the front. They have cancelled the annual strategy meeting, and have gone into overdrive...
I used to work with the guy Boeing hired to set up the 787 Safety Management System Program...but I am not gonna even try to contact him for a while!
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 16th Jan 2013 at 18:26.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: pakistan
Age: 36
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
787 batteries problem
Earlier it was JAL and now Nippon airways is in the ring .Earlier also Boeing remains confident when the JAL aircraft was grounded in Boston.
Strange but true ....""32Volts cell battery had accumulated 1.3 million flight hours across the fleet,before a unit exploded on & 7th January.Although Chilean carrier LAN is still satisfied with the type..
Boeing 787 chief Engineer Mike Sennett still unable to address the incident....courtesy:
Strange but true ....""32Volts cell battery had accumulated 1.3 million flight hours across the fleet,before a unit exploded on & 7th January.Although Chilean carrier LAN is still satisfied with the type..
Boeing 787 chief Engineer Mike Sennett still unable to address the incident....courtesy:
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, whether deplaning, or evacuating, "please wait", is not ill advised. Vaulting over seats or elbowing folks out of your way, not a good thing....
Don't forget the briefcase, numpty.....(SouthWest)?
Don't forget the briefcase, numpty.....(SouthWest)?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Freighters, after several hull losses, can no longer carry these batteries as cargo.
We carry them almost on a daily basis (between 5 to 20 tons) on both domestic and international sectors, including to/from FAA land. I am sure many other cargo operators do the same. They are not even listed as DGR goods on our NOTOCs.
If the 787 problem is traced to the batteries as main culprit, I wonder how difficult it would be to simply change them from Li-ion to traditional lead batteries. Sounds like the more sensible solution.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Broomstick,
Given the way the battery packs are wedged in there, NiCd probably wouldnt fit, and no way for lead-acid amount needed for equivalent...
hopefully, it will just be something with those cells that they have changed since...
IATA recommendations on Li transport...
http://www.ups.com/media/en/lithium_...s_guidance.pdf
Given the way the battery packs are wedged in there, NiCd probably wouldnt fit, and no way for lead-acid amount needed for equivalent...
hopefully, it will just be something with those cells that they have changed since...
IATA recommendations on Li transport...
http://www.ups.com/media/en/lithium_...s_guidance.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full emergency evac
Congrats to ANA for a well executed emergency procedure, and for taking decisive action to limit the risks to lives.
Boo to the FAA for hiding behind the word "investigation" in order to delay action.
There's probably an insurance/financial/legal reason why Boeing and the FAA won't address the problem more aggressively and issue an advisory to ground the 787 fleet; this is in fact more disturbing than an issue which is now known and can be solved by replacing a battery by a better battery.
If there are another couple of smoke/fire incidents then I don't think they'll manage to find pilots for these things unless they supply them with ejection seats and parachutes.
Boo to the FAA for hiding behind the word "investigation" in order to delay action.
There's probably an insurance/financial/legal reason why Boeing and the FAA won't address the problem more aggressively and issue an advisory to ground the 787 fleet; this is in fact more disturbing than an issue which is now known and can be solved by replacing a battery by a better battery.
If there are another couple of smoke/fire incidents then I don't think they'll manage to find pilots for these things unless they supply them with ejection seats and parachutes.
Last edited by edmundronald; 16th Jan 2013 at 19:10.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the word chosen by FAA is "REVIEW".
There is no way to assess the depth of concern, or scope of the review.
I lean toward calling it a "slow roll". You know it's a roll, but the urgency is lacking.
It is difficult to come up with an answer, the evidence is compelling, only the rate is suspicious.
"The risks were not downplayed; but they may not have received proper emphasis at the operations level...."
"Insufficient internal structure led to overheat, the loss of dissipation capability led to smell, and smoke."
"There is only one occurrence of combustion, Boston, and that was an overload via GPU, not APU...."
etc.
The discouraging thing, is that there is probably way too much concern over how to "play" it, rather than solve it.
There is no way to assess the depth of concern, or scope of the review.
I lean toward calling it a "slow roll". You know it's a roll, but the urgency is lacking.
It is difficult to come up with an answer, the evidence is compelling, only the rate is suspicious.
"The risks were not downplayed; but they may not have received proper emphasis at the operations level...."
"Insufficient internal structure led to overheat, the loss of dissipation capability led to smell, and smoke."
"There is only one occurrence of combustion, Boston, and that was an overload via GPU, not APU...."
etc.
The discouraging thing, is that there is probably way too much concern over how to "play" it, rather than solve it.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sdjest
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackout
OK, let's say the 787 has no structural problems with a burning accumulator. But that would probably still lead to higher loads on the other one. And what happens to the bird if both of them burn ? I guess it would still stay structurally intact, but if so many systems need electric power how much time remains for the crew to put the thing on terra firma before the emergency bats run out ? What if that happens over the big drink and this aircraft happens to be the first two-engine frame certified for the ocean if I recall properly ? OK, I guess I'm being a bit melodramatic, but some competent answers would be nice 
.
.
It looks like the screens were rebooting, it seems some of them are showing "Please wait". Only SLF but I would have thought it probably not the best thing to display during an evacuation
Also where the engine still spooling down or windmilling ?!
Did I see the pilots leaving before the last passengers ?
Finally I really don't see - at this stage - why everyone gets overexcited about outsourcing. We simply don't know if there is any connection.